David Miliband: I am sure that, by his reference to standards, the hon. Gentleman would not want to suggest that unsafe food was somehow being fedto hospital patients. I am concerned that, inadvertently, some people listening might have got that impression, and it is certainly not the case. Obviously, I believe that it is important that we give British producers the maximum opportunity to ensure that their food is supplied to public services such as hospitals, schools and the Prison Service. That is what the public sector food procurement initiative is designed to do, and it is helping local producers around the country to get their produce into the public sector. That is good and is consistent with the trade rules that ensure that our producers are able to export overseas as well as supply domestically.

Nicholas Winterton: I represent the constituency of Macclesfield in the county of Cheshire, which is heavily agricultural. Does the Secretary of State agree that the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) is relevant? The best boost that he could give today's hard-pressed farmers is to ensure that the food used in the public services, the Armyand schools meets the red tractor standard and is purchased from British producers. Surely we should back our farmers, just as so many other countries in Europe and elsewhere back theirs.

Julie Kirkbride: I do not know how often the Minister goes shopping, but if he walked down the nation's high streets he would notice that many shops leave their doors open to provide easy access for their customers, while keeping the heatingat full blast to make customers comfortable insidethe store. Does he agree that if we are to get the commercial sector to take climate change seriously we urgently need a climate change Bill to provide a framework in which everyone has to make their contribution to dealing with the problem?

Ben Bradshaw: We certainly welcome the initiative. He might have heard that Sainsbury's has today announced an increased price for milk, and I believe that Tesco did so yesterday. Those are moves in the right direction, as we have always said that there should be a sustainable industry and a fair price. However,that is a matter to be determined between the industry and retailers—under the auspices, of course, of the competition rules and so on—and not a matter for the Government.

Gordon Banks: As the Secretary of State will remember, on Tuesday he attended the Press Gallery writing competition and met one of my constituents, Andrew Mason, the Scottish regional finalist, whose work encapsulates the challenges and difficulties that China and India pose to the issue of climate change. Does my right hon. Friend think that the Climate Change Bill will be a tool that we can use not only domestically, but internationally, to work with developed and developing nations?

David Miliband: I know that the voice of the House was loud and clear yesterday, but we will not wait for the conclusion of House of Lords reform before publishing the Climate Change Bill. It will be published on Tuesday for pre-legislative scrutiny, which we planned to provide from the beginning. I applaud Conservative Front Benchers for recognising the maturity of an approach that considers pre-legislative scrutiny to be an essential part of building a national consensus on the issue. I hope that there will be real engagement with the Bill, not just in the House but in businesses and schools across the country. Accompanying the Bill, there will be a series of documents, which will be available for all Members of the House to use, with their constituents, to explain the issue, the choices that we face, and the way in which we can all make a difference, whether in government, in business, or as citizens, in helping to tackle the global problem of climate change.

Ian Pearson: Nobody should accept poor standards, and this Government do not. However, let me set that in the context of the Warm Front programme. From 2000 to 2008, the Government will have spent some£1.6 billion on the Warm Front programme. Some 230,000 jobs a year are undertaken through the Warm Front programme, so it is not surprising that performance is not satisfactory in some cases. However, less than 1 per cent. of jobs result in a complaint to the Warm Front programme, and 96 per cent. of those complaints are resolved satisfactorily. As I have said, the installers are rated by a vendor-rating system, and poor performance leads to reduced work or no work in the future. I am happy to examine specific cases, and if my hon. Friend wants to contact me, I will be happy to talk to him.

Ian Pearson: I am also the Minister for floods, so I take the hon. Gentleman's point.
	On new housing, I assure the hon. Gentleman that new housing development is taken into account by water companies as part of their planning process. Water companies produce 25-year water resource management plans. That process is being put on a statutory basis from the beginning of next month. The public will have an opportunity to comment on those plans, which will be available and transparent, as well as on new housing development. We must ensure not only that we move to zero-carbon homes within10 years but that we have homes that are far more water efficient. That is one of the key Government objectives for the future.

David Heathcoat-Amory: The Secretary of State knows that we pay nearly £2 into the EU budget for every£1 we get back. Why should the general taxpayer face an estimated fine of more than £300 million—the figure comes from the Government—to pay for the Department's inefficiencies in administering the single farm payments? Would not it be much better for the taxpayer, farmers and rural areas if incompetence on such a scale were met with ministerial resignations rather than foreign fines?

Nigel Griffiths: The business for next week will be as follows:
	Monday 12 March—Estimates [2nd Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on National Health Service deficits, followed by a debate on local transport planning and funding. Details will be given in the  Official Report.
	Tuesday 13 March—Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, followed by remaining stages of the Statistics and Registration Service Bill.
	Wednesday 14 March—A debate on Trident on a Government motion.
	Thursday 15 March—A debate on widening participation in higher education on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	Friday 16 March—The House will not be sitting.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 19 March will be as follows:
	Monday 19 March—Second Reading of the Consumer, Estate Agents and Redress Bill [ Lords].
	Tuesday 20 March—A debate on the bicentenary of the abolition of the slave trade on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	Wednesday 21 March—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget statement.
	Thursday 22 March—Continuation of the Budget debate.
	Friday 23 March—Private Members' Bills.
	I should also inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 15 and 22 March will be:
	Thursday 15 March—A debate on the report from the Treasury Committee on the administration of tax credits.
	Thursday 22 March—A debate on the report from the International Development Committee on conflict and development: peace-building and post-conflict reconstruction.
	 The information is as follows:
	 Health: in so far as they relate to national health service deficits (First Report from the Health Committee, Session 2006-07, HC 73-I, on National Health Service Deficits, and the Government response thereto, Cm 7028; and the Department of Health Departmental Report 2006, Cm 6814).
	 Transport: in so far as they relate to local transport planning and funding (Twelfth Report from the Transport Committee, Session 2005-06, on Local Transport Planning and Funding, HC 1120, and the Government's response thereto, Fourth Special Report, Session 2006-07,HC 334).
	The House of Commons expressed a clear view last night. It was indeed an historic moment for the House, but we must of course respect the right of the other House both to debate and to vote on reform next week. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said last night that he believed that a cross-party working group should reconvene in the near future, and expressed a willingness to talk to minority parties. Once we have taken stock of the decisions of both this House and the other place, my right hon. Friend will come to the House to make a detailed statement on the way forward, following reflection.
	Finally, let me welcome the shadow Deputy Leader of the House to our proceedings.

Shailesh Vara: The hon. Lady says from a sedentary position says that he just has. If she were listening carefully, she would have noted that there were warm words but nothing specific. I am asking for specific responses.
	Last night, the Leader of the House gave us his immediate thoughts on the next steps and I am grateful for that, but the next steps for reform of the other place will be complex, controversial and undoubtedly will take time. Will the Leader of the House come to this place and set out a clear timetable for the next steps? Is the expectation of the Government to fulfil their manifesto pledge and to legislate in this Parliament? Now that the Chancellor has finally expressed his views, will he confirm that the Chancellor will drive forward these reforms?
	Last night, this House clearly voted against the 50:50 proposal put forward by the Leader of the House and as such the House rejected the White Paper. Will the Deputy Leader of the House confirm that the White Paper is now scrapped? Will there, following the cross-party talks that he referred to, be a statement from the Leader of the House saying that there will be a new White Paper based on the votes of last night? When any legislation is put forward, will he undertake that all stages of the legislative process will take place on the Floor of this House, and not in Committee?
	As I said, last night was a momentous occasion but, given the complexity and controversy inherent in this constitutional reform, we must do all we can, working together, to ensure that reform does indeed go ahead. I would be grateful if the Deputy Leader of the House would enlighten us with his thoughts.

David Heath: After last night's votes, I can fully understand why the Leader of the House wants time away to think. To mark what was clearly an historic vote, whatever its consequences in this place—I hope that there is not now a queue of noble Lords asking for a refund—there is a need for a statement, as the Deputy Leader of the House suggested, from his right hon. Friend after the Lords have had their debate and vote. Such a statement will need to set out the Government's intentions, but must not hide behind the normal conventions regarding the Queen's Speech. We want now not a White Paper but legislation to be put before this House in the next Session of Parliament so that we can resolve this matter once and for all.
	To show that I believe that some good work does happen in the other place, may I ask the Deputy Leader of the House whether he will find time properly to debate two private Member's Bills that emanate from the Lords? The first is the Cluster Munitions (Prohibition) Bill in the name of Lord Dubs, which builds on the intergovernmental conference on cluster munitions and the Oslo declaration. Many of us feel that it is time that cluster munitions were banned. The Bill will provide the opportunity to do so.
	The other Bill is the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Bill, in the name of my noble Friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) yesterday. Those excellent measures should be given proper time for debate in this House.
	May we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Health on the future of the medical training application service? It is in complete disarray. Many junior doctors find it impossible to make proper applications for the jobs that they should be pursuing in order to further their careers. The Secretary of State has said in a statement that the service is to be reviewed, but the appointment process is continuing. Can she be brought to the House to explain why she is not suspending the process until such time as proper arrangements can be made before irreparable damage is done to the careers of many young doctors and some of them are lost to the country?
	A lot of play was made in the debates of the past two days about the importance that the House attaches to its right to vote on supply. Will the Deputy Leader of the House explain why on Monday we will have an estimates day, but we will not consider the estimates that are put before us? We will not have a debate on those estimates. We will not have any real opportunity to amend them, and many of us would like to have the opportunity, for instance, to look at the supplementary estimate of £587,000 extra to go to the Deputy Prime Minister's office for functions that, frankly, elude most of us in this House.

Anne Main: In 2004, the Secretary of State for Health announced an annual£40 million to go towards the treatment of incarcerated drug offenders, yet recent meetings seem to suggest that only half the prison estate is being covered. It certainly will not be covered by 2008 if the funding carries on at the same rate. Can the Secretary of State make a statement to the House on where we are in rolling out the programme to ensure that we get the integrated drug treatment that we agreed on?

Nigel Griffiths: It is usual for any political party to target supporters with mailings. I gather that among the petitions he mentions there were not too many people supporting the Government's position on matters, so I would caution my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office against coming to the House and explaining how it might be useful to spend money targeting those people. On a more serious point, all the information is of course covered by data protection legislation, but I think that the House welcomes the use of petition procedures—as hasalso happened in devolved Administrations. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is considering recommendations for how the House may more effectively use the petitions procedure, as happens in the Scottish Parliament.

Paul Flynn: When can we discuss the report published today about the abject failure of drug policy in Britain since 1971, when harsh prohibition was first introduced? At that time, there were fewer than 1,000 addicts in this country, and virtually no drug crimes or deaths. Now, however,36 years later, we have 280,000 addicts and the worst levels of drug crimes and deaths in our continent. Should we not turn away from the years in which we pursued policies based on the criminal justice system? They were popular and appeared to be tough, but they failed. Should we not adopt the bold policies based on health solutions that have succeeded in other countries?

Nigel Griffiths: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Such a debate would be welcome, and I am sorry that it is not in next week's programme. The debate would of course be held in a spirit of persuasion, not in the spirit of bullying Scottish businesses as the leader of the Scottish National party is alleged to have done bySir David Murray. It is important that there is debate, and even though there may not be detailed debate in the House, it is certainly taking place in Scotland.

Vera Baird: My hon. Friend the Minister for Women and Equality, who will wind up the debate, is better placed to talk about the time frame, but the hon. Gentleman perceives the issue correctly. An interesting question—again, this is my own private view—is what impact the public gender duty will have on the procurement systems of public authorities.
	In April 2006, the independent judicial appointment commission was launched, and it is now responsible for the selection of candidates for judicial appointments in England and Wales. The commission has a statutory duty to encourage a wider range of applicants for judicial office, while maintaining the principle that selection for appointment is on merit. Justice is key in a thriving society and it is important that the public have confidence in our justice system.
	How are women treated by our justice system? It seems that women have sometimes been disadvantaged by it. We have looked to improve the experiences of women and vulnerable people in many ways, and we are slowly but surely starting to succeed. There are some cheering figures, which I shall relay in a moment. The greatest victories have had to do with domestic violence, and let me make it clear once, and onlyonce in this essentially non-party political debate, that that is down to Labour. It is down to the impact of100 Labour women coming into the House. In the 30 years after Jo Richardson's private Member's Bill was taken on by the Labour Government of the day, there was no mention of the words "domestic violence" under the superintendence of the Opposition.
	Jo Richardson's Bill was to provide a private law remedy for domestic violence, but now we prosecute it as a crime, and we do so in specialist courts. There are domestic violence advisers and specialist domestic violence courts that aim to make victims and witnesses feel safe and well informed. They drive the case for women who, if they did not have independent advisers supporting them, would feel far too undermined by what they had gone through at the hands of the perpetrator to drive the case themselves. From April 2007 there will be 64 specialist domestic violence courts across England and Wales. Some £1.85 million in funding has been allocated for next year to fund access to training for independent domestic violence advisers who support victims throughout their case.
	The IDVAs—it is an unhappy acronym—are key. They provide the support and help that the woman needs. They work virtually hand in hand with her, and help from the time that the complaint is made. The adviser will drive the case and help with benefits changes, the need for a new home, the need to move a child to a different school, child care and so on. She will have her fingers in public authority pies, and that will help her to provide those services for women who are otherwise totally on their own. IDVAs come from the voluntary sector, are independent and can be trusted.
	Specialist domestic violence courts, with which IDVAs are linked, provide specialised personnel—prosecutors, officers and magistrates—who have been trained out of the still all-too-prevalent notions about domestic violence. They identify, fast-track and risk-assess domestic violence cases. They group them together, enhance information sharing and provide support.
	I said that I would give some cheering figures. Successful prosecutions for domestic violence cases have gone up from 46 to 65.4 per cent. between 2003 and 2006, by which time the specialist courts were on stream. Guilty pleas have increased from 45 to 58 per cent. In domestic violence specialist courts, 71 per cent. of cases have successful outcomes. It is good to add that domestic violence itself seems to have gone down by 60 per cent. in less than 10 years. It remains an appalling statistic that two women a week are killed by their violent partners, but the figure used to be getting on for three, so we are making some progress, albeit incrementally.

Vera Baird: I could not agree more. That sounds like a terrific model that we should be trying to roll out. That contrasts positively with some statistics I recall from a couple of years ago, which showed that many15 to 17-year-old women—even women—think that it is okay for a man to hurt a woman if he is angry, and that twice the number of men of that age thought that that was okay. Clearly, the kind of scheme that has been described must be encouraged; that is a very good story.
	There are now independent sexual violence advisers—or ISVAs, which is an even more uncomfortable acronym. They are, of course, the consequence of a read-across from domestic violence to rape, and it is excellent that that work is finally being done. They help with the decision about whether to prosecute and support the individual if they decide to do so. Only about 15 per cent. of people who are raped report it, and there is a 5.2 per cent. conviction rate. Therefore, the conviction rate is minute compared with the incidence. We must do everything that we can in this area, because sexual violence is one of the most serious and personally traumatising and damaging of crimes, and it is a huge cause—and a consequence of—gender inequality. For victims, it can have significant and ongoing impact on their health and well-being.

Vera Baird: Yes. That is imperative. It happens now in some cases because injunctions are often backed by a power of arrest, so there is a system in place but it will need firming up before the measures come into force, in June, I think. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the use of restraint orders after conviction, but they have a further advantage even if there is no conviction. Many women are not very strong in the witness box, they do not really want to see the perpetrator sent to prison—he is probably the father of their children—they may not give high calibre evidence and they may be unsure what they want. If, although there is an acquittal, the court none the less has an apprehension that there is a danger from that individual, a restraining order can be imposed. That is a concrete step. In a secondary way, it encourages the police, who would bring the case to court, then find that the complainant was not too sure, and they would get nothing from it, so to speak. It is now their public responsibility. The restraining orders given them some pay-back for persevering, which I hope will encourage them.
	We have extended the sexual assault referral centre model. There will be one on Teesside near my constituency soon. That is a very good arrangement between the police and the primary care trust. These SARCs give Rolls-Royce treatment. They believe the complainant from the start. They do not raise the question of her testimony. They treat her as a patient. We have also strengthened the specialist voluntary sector, which can provide longer-term therapeutic services for such victims. Prosecuting people for rape is important, but the recovery of the complainant is vital.
	We have made a number of changes to the way that the criminal justice agencies deal with sexual offences. The definition of rape has changed, the terms in which previous sexual history can be admitted have been cut back, we use special measures such as video links, and the defence of Morgan, long a hate word on the lips of the women's lobby, has disappeared, making the proceedings in rape cases much fairer. In the coming months we will produce a cross-Government action plan on how we intend to address all aspects of sexual violence.
	It is clear that there is a strong link between domestic violence and sexual assault, and this year we are looking to merge these two important issues, bringing these two work streams closer together to provide a more strategic framework for addressing gender-based violence. Gender-based violence goes way beyond domestic violence. Forced marriages are also a form of violence, and the Government fully support the aims of the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Bill. We wish to see provision along those lines on the statute book as soon as possible. I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) on the work that she has done, listening and leading in her constituency on that topic.
	Honour killings also affect women disproportionately. Women whose actions, real or suspected, sometimes when they have been the victim of rape, can lead to a drive in their family, who have no socially acceptable alternative but to remove the stain on their honour by attacking the woman. We must tackle that forcefully too.

David Heath: I am sorry to intervene again on the hon. and learned Lady. She referred to the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Bill in the name of my noble Friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill, which was so ably supported and largely instigated by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer). I asked at business questions what form the Government's assistance to the Bill would take. Will it have Government time? Will the Government take over the Bill and introduce it as a Government Bill, or does it run the risk of losing outin the normal scramble on private Members' Bills, which means that whatever the Government's good intentions, it will not reach the statute book?

Vera Baird: I must compliment the Poppy project, which has led the way in giving support and breathing space to trafficked women. I also congratulate my hon. Friend on pointing out how complex, knotty and interwoven the fates of the abuser and the abused are in such situations. We must move forward carefully but speedily towards a solution to that problem.
	There is a Home Office scheme called the women's offending reduction programme, which has functioned since March 2004. It is intended to improve community interventions and services for women, to support greater use of community sentences and to avoidthe use of custody for women, where possible. The previous Home Secretary announced a programme called, "Together women" at the annual meeting of the Fawcett commission on women and criminal justice, which I chaired a year ago. We have invested £9 million in that project since 2005, and there are demonstration projects in four centres. Those one-stop centres allow key workers to support women who are offenders and women who are at risk of offending.

Lynne Jones: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that children suffer disproportionately when women are sent to prison? When a mother is sent to prison, it is far less likely that the child will be able to remain in the family home or be cared for by a parent. In that context, will she look again at the changes introduced in the past year to release on temporary licence, which, while they have assured some consistency in accessto release to see children when women are imprisoned and to maintain their contacts with their families, discretion for governors on the length of release on temporary licence and the frequency of its use has been reduced? Surely that is a detrimental step.

Vera Baird: My hon. Friend raised that point at a recent private meeting. I do not know why that step has been taken, but I am sure that there is a rationale behind it. I will take up the matter with Home Office Ministers and come back to her. It is germane to mention that Baroness Corston, who has been holding an inquiry into vulnerable women and, in particular, vulnerable women in prison, which will be reporting very soon. I expect her report to make recommendations for situations such as the one that my hon. Friend has raised.
	I have discussed trying to get women to be sentenced in a different way, and I have talked about the thin line between being thrown into chaos and turning to crime. There must be a situation for intervention between the two, and my Department is working to increase the awareness of available advice and information, which can help people whose lives are becoming chaotic by providing early interventions to solve problems before they escalate, by helping with fair and proportionate dispute resolution and by delivering expeditious justice. When a person is not in the territory of the specific help provided by independent sexual violence advisers, can we none the less catch that person to stop their debt problems by giving them good early advice, to help them to hold on to their house and to prevent them from drifting into crime in order to ensure that they keep their children?
	Our legal aid scheme plays a crucial role in that respect. Our current legal aid reform proposals have generated a good deal of debate, but what is lost in that debate far too often is that the whole point of carrying out the reform is to make sure that we can join other funders who can give non-legal advice, and thereby give easy access to our legal advice, so we can help as many vulnerable and socially excluded people as possible. We must do that by focusing legal aid away from criminal legal aid towards civil and family legal aid, and by making both systems as efficient as possible. That is what we are doing, and that is what we will do. Women, justice and gender equality in the UK is a complex subject. I have only just begun to address some specifics in this opening speech, but I hope that I have set out some of the work that we are doing to meet the needs of women in our society. I guess that all hon. Members who are here already understand that it will take a lot more. Let us celebrate ourselves, and let us celebrate the progress that we have made. Other women in the world are, like us, considering these topics on this important day. Let us resolve to commit yet more energy and to work in solidarity for yet another year towards a more equal world for women.

Eleanor Laing: I warmly welcome the fact that we are having this debate. For a long time, we had to argue for the necessity for a debate on women's issues and for marking international women's day in this place. I am delighted that we are having a full and thorough debate today.
	I do not entirely agree with the Minister that this is like new year's day. It does not feel like it to me, because I have not been out partying all night and do not have a hangover. No jokes about being legless, please—I do have one leg that is working perfectly well. I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I am a little slow in some things, but I am working under the temporary disability of a broken leg, hence the crutches. However, it is a very good experience for a shadow spokesman on equality to discover, on a day-to-day basis, what it is like to navigate round one's busy life with a disability. I am fortunate in that mine, I hope, will be overcome soon.
	I welcome the fact that there are so many hon. Ladies on the Government Benches—but there is not one single hon. Gentleman. So much for gender equality in the Government. I am not suggesting for a moment that the hon. Ladies on the Government Front Bench, or indeed any other hon. Ladies, need any support from their male colleagues, but their absence is just so starkly obvious. I realise that perhaps they cannot see it from over there, but I can. It is remarkable that male Labour Members of Parliament think that a debate on gender equality and justice on international women's day is nothing whatsoever to do with them. I like to be optimistic, so perhaps the explanation is that hon. Ladies on the Government Benches are so competent and have achieved so much—as I believe they have—that their male colleagues do not think it necessary to be here.
	Be that as it may, I should like to welcome my hon. Friends the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), for Buckingham (John Bercow), for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) and for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), and indeed the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath)—oh, he has gone. At least he put in an appearance.  [ Interruption. ] I am told that my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) is also here—I am sorry, but my ability to swing around is not terrific. I welcome them and my other hon. Friends, and thank Members in the House generally for their support for this debate.

Eleanor Laing: Having been a woman Whip, I know the advantages only too well. Of course, the hon. Lady is right, but I could not resist the very rare opportunity to make such a point. However, we are getting rather off the subject.
	The Minister gave a wide-ranging and thorough speech on matters of great importance, very little of which I disagreed with. All of us, on both sides of the House, have worked together very well these past few years on issues of equality and fairness, and an awful lot has been achieved. However, very many women, in all walks of life, are still at a disadvantage in one way or another, and that is why it is important that we have a full and thorough debate today.
	I realise that the motion is specifically about matters in the UK, as is correct, but I should note that the progress that we have made and the lives that we lead today as women in the western world bear no relation whatsoever to what women are having to suffer in many countries around the world. So much still has to be done for them, but that does not diminish what we still have to achieve in our own country.
	I would argue that there is no such thing as a women's issue. People who do not come to debates like this will sometimes say, "Oh, that's just about women's issues and I speak on transport," or "I have an interest in defence," or "I specifically deal with foreign affairs." Every issue affects women and men, and women are affected by every issue. What there is, though, is a slightly different women's point of view on many of the policy areas that we discuss from day to day. It is good that at last we can dare to say that women do things differently from men—not better or worse, or at least not always. I am not making a value judgment but stating a simple, stark, obvious point, which is rarely stated because it is too obvious or because it is disagreed with. Because women do things differently from men, we sometimes find ourselves in this place, and in many institutions around the country, seeing a way in which something could be changed and improved from the point of view of women, but finding that no one will listen because the argument will always be, "We've always done it like this—why change it?" Often, a small change would improve the lives and working conditions of many women. The Under-Secretary covered some of those issues today, as did other hon. Members in interventions. I shall not attempt to cover everything that we could discuss, not least because I cannot stand up for that long. I am sure that my colleagues are delighted to hear that.
	I should like to welcome, as I have done on every occasion when we have discussed the matter, the great achievements of the Equality Act 2006 and the establishing of the Commission for Equality and Human Rights. It is a great step forward that Conservative Members supported all the way. I look forward to further progress on the matter.

Eleanor Laing: I will give way in a moment. The short speech that I was going to make is rapidly lengthening.
	To return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), we hardly ever say now, because it has been said so often, but it is true, that Margaret Thatcher made a huge difference to the ability of women in the United Kingdom and throughout the western world to achieve to the highest levels. After she became Prime Minister, nobody could say that it cannot be done. When I was a child, I said I was interested in politics, and I suppose that I argued in a childlike way that I wanted to be a Member of Parliament. People said, "You can't be a Member of Parliament. You're a girl." Margaret Thatcher made an enormous difference not only by being there but by being such a success. This country, this place and the women of this country owe her an enormous debt of gratitude.

Eleanor Laing: The hon. Lady proves my point. I said that Baroness Thatcher made an enormous difference, and she did. Although this is not the subject of the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is not far from it, and three things would not be nearly enough. I made the point a little while ago that there is no such thing as a women's issue. Women do not live in a different world from men; we all live in one world and one country together. Unless that country is prospering as a strong economy and enough taxes are being raised tofund good public services and help people who need those services, the whole of society suffers. Baroness Thatcher turned around this country and economy to make it successful once more.

Angela Watkinson: Was it not Lady Thatcher who released countless women from the feudal tyrannyof local authority landlords, and gave them the independence that comes with home ownership?

Eleanor Laing: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	The point about women and economic activity is that if the very good policies we are now pursuing—both the Work and Families Act 2006 and the Equality Act 2006, which I mentioned earlier, have the total support of Conservative Members—are to be effective on the ground, those of us who believe in them in principle must take the business community with us. I have asked Ministers before, and I ask again today, whether the Government intend to publish guidance to help small businesses, in particular, to put the terms of those two Acts into practice. I am thinking particularly of the right to request flexible working hours. I fear that that there is a misconception in the business community that flexible working is likely to be detrimental to business. I firmly believe, on the basis of evidence that I have seen, that it is likely to be beneficial to business, which is one of the reasons why I thoroughly support what the Government are doing in that regard.
	We have digressed somewhat from what I was saying about achievements relating to violence, health and economic activity. Let me finish what I was saying about economic achievements. For a long time, wehave enjoyed a pretty good standard of equality of opportunity in education for girls and boys, but that is not reflected in the higher echelons of business and the professions. I shall say more about that shortly.
	I pay tribute to the many charities and outside bodies that work in the fields we are discussing, such as the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Fawcett Society. Let me also mention, in terms of domestic violence, Refuge and Women's Aid; in respect of encouraging women to be confident and building up their career prospects, the many groups, including the Girl Guides and the scout movement, that are often not given the praise that they deserve; and in the field of trafficking, the POPPY project and Stop the Traffik. I cannot possibly give an exhaustive list and I have omitted far more organisations than I have mentioned, but I want to take this opportunity to commend and thank those who have given their time voluntarily, and have established such excellent outside bodies to enact the agenda that we are discussing. They have improved women's lives over the years, and I am confident that they will continue to do so.
	As I have said, we have achieved a great deal, but there is even more still to be done. The Minister dealt very well with the subject of violence, particularly domestic violence, but let me repeat the statistic that today one woman in three in the United Kingdom is likely to suffer domestic violence at some point in her life. We must not forget that a significant number of men suffer that, too. However, domestic violence against women has always been prevalent. For a long time, we did not talk about it. Now we are and we are doing something about it. I ask the Minister and her colleagues to look in detail at the police's powers to deal with domestic violence. I am not criticising anything that the Minister has said today, and I accept that a lot of progress has been made, but we hear again and again from police officers who have been dealing with crimes of domestic violence that they do not have the necessary powers to do what they would like to do.
	Let us not forget that, if someone is killed as a result of domestic violence, it is still murder. It is not just domestic violence; it is murder. I know that Ministers agree with me on that. I make the point because, in the wider context, people talk about domestic violence as if it is a fringe issue. It is not. It is a very serious crime.

Eleanor Laing: I agree with the Minister entirely. I am not suggesting that the matter can be solved easily or that the definitional point is anything more than that, but it is a starting point. The fact that we are having this exchange across the Dispatch Box during an important debate on justice for women brings the matter to the fore. I am pleased that she and her colleagues share our concern about the matter.
	Trafficking, which has been mentioned by the Minister and other Members, is another matter that involves violence and where we have so much more to do. Trafficking is tragic. Look at the prevalence of trafficking and at the number of young women and girls involved, because some of them are still legally children, who are brought into this country and other parts of Europe illegally, under duress and under false pretences. They are literally sold as prostitutes, or sometimes as domestic servants—that is obviously less of a problem but it is still a difficult issue. When they are sold as prostitutes they are made to work in appalling conditions, with no freedom. That is akin to slavery. I am sure that neither Minister needs me to convince them on that issue. We are all concerned about it. I want to ensure that, by discussing it in the House, it is given the attention that it deserves.
	I suggest that guidance in the health service might help us to identify women and girls who are being forced to work as prostitutes. We often see  Daily Mail-type articles about how scandalous it is that some women have three abortions in a year. Has it never occurred to the health professionals dealing with such cases that, if a woman presents herself three times in a year as pregnant and in need of an abortion, there may be something wrong other than just carelessness, and that that is often the case?
	I am told by respectable and powerful charities that deal with the issue of trafficking that identification of victims is difficult, but could be made easier if professionals working in front-line services were trained to look for the danger signs. I hope that that is something that the Government will consider doing. We will continue our campaign on trafficking because it is tragic, as I am sure everyone in the House agrees, that women and girls are literally sold into slavery in this way.
	The third area in which there is still much to do is health. Taking preventive action is much better for patients and for the economies of the health service in the long run than leaving people to develop diseases and then having to cure them. I want to be quick so I will use just one example. I have worked with the all-party group on osteoporosis for some time, and with the National Osteoporosis Society. It is unfortunate—let me put it no stronger than that—that at present osteoporosis, which is easy to detect, is not diagnosed in hundreds of thousands of women who go on to suffer from it. It is a disease which, if detected early, can be almost completely cured; its worst ill effects can be avoided. Some men suffer from the disease, but the vast majority of sufferers are women, and a large number of women who do not know that they have it because it does not manifest itself in any particularly awful way until most women are in their mid-70s.
	If an older woman suffers a fracture and is made immobile for six or seven weeks, the complications, which may include other health problems such as pneumonia or much more difficult illnesses to treat, can be very serious. It is a shocking statistic that if a woman in her later years suffers a fracture that would be as nothing to a younger person, she is likely to die within six months when she may have been really pretty healthy before the fracture occurred. Usually, such a fracture occurs because she is suffering unknowingly from osteoporosis.
	I really ought to declare an interest. The reason why I managed in a fairly moderate little ski-ing accident to break my leg is that I have osteoporosis. I have become more knowledgeable about the subject, although I have known that I have it for many years. Something that is easily shaken off in one's 40s—I was pleased when my doctors described me as youthful in medical terms—is pretty serious in one's 70s. Older women's health is a much-neglected area in health priorities. The Minister would argue that if we have priorities some people win and some people lose, but there is a good economic case as well as an extremely good compassionate case for investing in the prevention of certain diseases, especially among the female population.
	I wish to come to a conclusion quickly now, but I have to say a couple more things about women's economic activity and the great steps that still have to be taken to produce equality in the workplace. PricewaterhouseCoopers has produced statistics today that show that there are 40 per cent. fewer women at the top of the professions today than five years ago. The reasons given are of course that child care costs have increased enormously—by something like 27 per cent. over the past five years—and that there is insufficient flexibility in the workplace. I dealt with that earlier. Ministers will have the support of the Opposition if they take steps under the Work and Families Act 2006 to extend the right to request flexible working that the parents of small children enjoy to parents generally and to people with family responsibilities.
	It is time that we faced the truth that we are asking women who have children to do two jobs. We need a new approach to the way in which jobs are done at the highest level in our economy. I do not suggest for a moment that this is something that can be done by the Government or Parliament. It is a matter of change of attitudes. I saw advice to young women entitled "How to succeed in a career" recently, written by someone for whom I have great respect, and who has succeeded enormously in her career. It said that one of the main things that women have to do is to be 100 per cent. dedicated to the work they are doing. Anyone, even the mother of a small child, can be 100 per cent. dedicated to the work that they do from 9 to 5 Monday to Friday, but if someone has family responsibilities they cannot be 100 per cent. dedicated to the work that they are doing. We see young men 100 per cent. dedicated and they go up and up in the work force; they succeed more and earn more and so the spiral is perpetuated.
	The CBI then argues that we should not worry about unequal numbers of women achieving in the professions because there are equal numbers of men and women in the City in well-paid jobs aged 28. Well, that is no surprise to me. When I was 28 I did exactly the same job as my then husband. Of course I did. We all do when it is just a question of being a women without any responsibilities; it is the same as being a man without any responsibilities. But the fact is that we need women to produce children, we need women to look after families and care for elderly relatives so we have to accept that we are asking women to do two jobs. Therefore, we have to encourage not just the right to request but the granting of flexibility in the workplace.

Dari Taylor: I do apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for that mistake.
	I wish that I could make the same warm comments about the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), whose contribution I found very disappointing, to say the least. In the past, we have had some very good contributions from the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan); she was missed today.
	Women have to face many challenges in their professional lives and in other forms of employment, and within politics. I want to concentrate for a moment on some of those challenges. My party has done very well on this issue, and if I were to produce a report, it would say, "Good progress has been made, but there is more to do. Could do better." Now, nearly 20 per cent. of Labour Back Benchers are women, and it would be appropriate for that figure to rise to 40 per cent. That would constitute excellent progress, and it would be even better if it rose to 50 per cent.
	I will not by any means give lectures to the other parties represented here, but I am keen to say to members of my own party that the creative, positive and challenging input of women in this House, in local government, and in the professions and all other forms of employment, has to be recognised. Such input is highly valued. I would be very disappointed if my party moved back into the world of the old boys' network in which only those who belong to it are supported, and from which those bringing up families, working and performing a number of other tasks—those who are outside that easy operational network—are excluded. My party is still fighting that fight today. We have won so far; the challenge is to keep on winning.
	I want to dwell for a moment on a recent visit that I and four other Labour Members paid to Pakistan. Before doing so, I should like to declare an interest, in case it is appropriate to do so. That visit was funded by three business men from my constituency, all of whom are concerned that we should get to know Pakistan better and develop our relations with it. That is what we did during our visit. We all most gratefully thank Mr. Javed, who not only provided funding but offered excellent support in all that we did in Pakistan.
	I want to tell the House about that visit for one reason if nothing else. We all say with great pride, as do I, that this is the mother of all Parliaments, but in Pakistan today, 33 per cent. of those in the Senate, the National Assembly and local councils are women. Women share power in those institutions. Nobody denies that many of the women in the Senate and the National Assembly have wealthy backgrounds and probably come from political families, but that does not prevent them from clearly defining the various issues and concerns, and producing policies that are greatly to the betterment of women, families and communities.
	While we were there, we listened to Senators talk about how they are persuading Balochistan and other places to support girls' education by paying parents200 rupees. We examined carefully the legislation that the National Assembly is introducing on outlawing honour killings. The assembly is doing its best to ensure that the law is supported. We also observed and got involved in the many literacy programmes. We saw women learning to read. Over time, they see the value of learning to read and its relevance to their children. Indeed, they are not just learning their own language; they are learning to speak ours, as well. They are women from the villages, ordinary women, but they have tremendous courage and tenacity.
	We were impressed by all the groups we met. The women Senators were sparkling—I am sure that the male Senators are just as good, but we were determined to meet the women, and that is what we did—and very focused on, and determined about, what they were doing. The National Assembly representatives also all spoke English as well as we do, and they made us all thoroughly ashamed that we do not speak any other languages.
	If one group stood out as seriously pleasing to meet, it was the local councillors, the ordinary women. One said, "I could not read my own language when I was elected to the council, but I can read it now." We heard the empowerment in their voices and saw that they knew what was required for their communities. Their determination to deliver those policies was extraordinarily powerful.
	It was a good visit. It was great to see how micro-credit is giving so many people a better lifestyle. It was superb to see the female literacy centre in Taxila, which was not a college or purpose-built building, but a person's home. He had provided the space because he knew the importance of the literacy programme. It was great to see how community organisations in the village of Pink Malikan worked and to speak with the woman organising the Nomad arts gallery. I think that I have a lot of tenacity, but those women have serious amounts of tenacity.
	Top of the tree for me was going to the Fatima Jinnah women's university and speaking to 22-year-olds who did not want us to go. We answered their questions for 45 minutes to an hour, but we could have spent a couple of days with them. Those young women are Pakistan's tomorrow and they are seriously good. They are challenging and determined that they will be part of tomorrow's Pakistan and deliver a better life for people in that country.
	Coming from the mother of Parliaments, I was pleased to see affirmative action work in Pakistan and the reality of 33 per cent. representation for women providing a clear image of power and value to other women. I hope that we will see that as valuable and that my party will quickly adopt 33 per cent. as the minimum threshold for affirmative action for women in this House, on councils and in other elected bodies.
	I have an equal commitment to the issue of infertility and I have the pleasure of chairing the all-party group on infertility. If any hon. Member has not had the experience of speaking to couples—often in their 20s, sometimes in their 30s and 40s—struggling with this issue, I urge them to do so, although I cannot believe that there is anybody who has not done so. It is an issue in which we all, in different ways, get very involved. Today, one in six couples in Great Britain have problems conceiving. People are often embarrassed by that, and think that their womanhood or manhood is reduced. That is nonsensical, but that is the impact that infertility has. The statistic of one in six is probably wrong, and it is likely to be at least one in five.
	The all-party group has had a positive and supportive relationship with the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), who has helped to deliver for the group, but the issue needs more than one Minister in one Department. We need the whole House to be very involved in the issue. The Government have put reasonable amounts into that area of health policy and made it clear that each couple should receive three IVF treatments if they are suitable, but that does not happen. The fact that primary care trusts are not obliged to implement NICE guidance means that they can decide that IVF treatment is not a priority. Perhaps there is a postcode lottery, because we know that many young couples suffer from the fact that some PCTs do not offer IVF treatment.

Barbara Keeley: One of my constituents who needs IVF treatment is in the unfortunate position of having her hospital in one local authority but living in another, which has a three-year waiting list. She is32 and has had ectopic pregnancies, so IVF is her only chance. Members have made some useful points, but does my hon. Friend agree that women such as my constituent who have suffered several ectopic pregnancies and for whom IVF is their only chance should be given priority over others in the queue?

Dari Taylor: It would be appropriate if the hon. Lady wrote to me. I am not making a political statement, because that is not how the all-party group operates, but if she is saying, as I think she is, that there is a money issue, we need to look at it. Information from other PCTs shows that value judgments are made about priorities, so it would be valuable to hear from the hon. Lady. In fact, I definitely invite her to join the all-party group. That would be tremendous.
	At present, a review of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 is under way, which is appropriate. I have observed the work of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority throughout Great Britain and find its regulatory procedure overwhelmingly controlling and strict. In actual fact, I think they reach a point where they begin to stigmatise infertile couples and stigmatise children who are born through fertility treatments. Let me explain.
	If we look at the Government's detailed central register of all couples who have received infertility treatment, we find that—regardless of whether they have achieved pregnancy or not—all children born through that procedure are included and maintained on it. I view that as intrusive and totally unnecessary. It is my third request this afternoon that they are taken off that register, as they should not have been placed on it by he HFEA in the first place.
	My fourth request is to look further into private clinics. We are very aware of how they work. They have a job to do and I am certainly not knocking them, but it would be very valuable if they were brought into line with NHS procedures. Indeed, I would think it appropriate if they became part of the NHS so that they did not exist outside it and could not promise women and young and older couples things that cannot be done. We need to see clearly what their competences are in order to deliver.
	Will the Minister reflect on a further request? I have been greatly involved with the Newcastle fertility centre. As well as supporting IVF as a treatment, it is an excellent research establishment. Every year, this excellent research centre, which does work that any infertile person would acknowledge as invaluable, has to pay out £70,000 in licences. For every patient it incurs a cost of £100 and every patient pays £100. It is a tax that the infertile have to pay. It is totally nonsensical and I would hope that Ministers looked further into that problem.
	Before finishing, I want to refer to a piece of research that was carried out very thoughtfully by the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps). His study has proved very valuable. Although his research probably tells us what we already know, sadly, despite the fact that we all know it, it remains an absolutely controlling influence in the delivery of infertility services. The hon. Gentleman points out that in some authorities, one has to be aged 30 or 36 to receive any IVF treatment; in others, the age is 35 and still others 36 to 39. There is not an hon. Member in the House who doubts the research showing that IVF's capacity to achieve a conception becomes significantly less for women over the age of 35 and that it will work for a singularly very small minority of women over 40.
	Let us think about a young couple, perhaps around the age of 22. If the medics have said clearly that the prognosis is that they are not going to conceive naturally, why are we asking couples to wait from the age of22 until they are 30 to 36, 35 or 39 before treatment kicks in? Clearly, the hon. Gentleman's research is valuable. He believes that infertility and fertility services are being marginalised and that there could well be a problem with funding. What he is saying, in total, is that the delivery of such services is messy and has no uniformity. I have always believed that any medical intervention should be provided at the point of need. The point of need seems to vary according to where people happen to be living. I suggest to my Front-Bench colleagues that it would be valuable to have a look at the hon. Gentleman's thoughtful piece of research.
	My real request is for the House to accept that we are seeing the development of new procedures and technology in infertility. We are seeing some staggeringly good developments in clinical standards. Slowly, we are seeing a change in public attitudes to infertility and we should encourage that to continue. I accept that there is a need for effective regulation, but I want infertile couples to be treated in the fair and just way that other patients in the national health service are treated, and from which they benefit.

Maria Miller: I should like to ask the hon. Lady a question which perhaps I should have asked of the Minister during her speech earlier. Many women Members who are present in the Chamber have family commitments, myself included. I am not sure whether the following question is about a particularly party political issue or just one that the entire House must deal with; how do we make this job more attractive to women who have family responsibilities? It is a difficult job for anyone to do, let alone those with young children. It might be unfair to have asked that question of the hon. Lady but I would be interested to hear her answer.

Madeleine Moon: I endorse my hon. Friend's comments 100 per cent. I visited my local Sure Start centre in north Cornelly recently to discuss child trust funds. I met very young women, who were first-time, single mothers. They were deeply committed to their child trust funds and their children's futures. All were contributing additional funds to the trust funds because they wanted their children to have a future. They were determined to work hard to provide it for them. All the women were developing a life plan and making a commitment to what they would do and how they would move away from staying at home with their children, find work and develop their skills base while their children were still young and they had the opportunity of child care and support from the Sure Start centre. They wanted to improve their chances of work once their children were in full-time education. I therefore thank my hon. Friend for her helpful intervention.
	We must accept, however, that one of the problems faced by women today is the incredible level of pressure. In trying to fight to move away from our past, and to enter the world as full partners alongside men, many women face a struggle. Rising numbers have mental health problems, especially in the prison population. Seventy per cent. of women prisoners suffer from two or more mental health problems, which is a disgrace. How can we accept that and not pour money into mental health and into diversions that will take women away from a situation that cannot help but exacerbate their mental health problems? Women are five times more likely to self-harm while in prison than men, and women do not self-harm unless they are driven to deep despair. This is a national disgrace: 55 per cent. of all self-harm in prisons is by women, and yet women are only 6 per cent. of the prison population. That is an epidemic, and we must do something about it.
	Thirty-seven per cent. of women who are in prison will have made a suicide attempt before they were admitted to prison. We therefore know that a large proportion of women in our prisons are extremely vulnerable and fragile. Prison is not the way to deal with people who have mental health problems and who are fragile and vulnerable. Fifty-five per cent. of women who arrive at prison will test positive for class A drugs. With treatment, we can successfully help women deal with their drug abuse. All too often, however, that treatment is not available.
	Prison is particularly damaging for women when it breaks their ties with their families, and especially if it breaks their ties with their children. The relatively small number of women's prisons and their geographical location mean that the majority of women will serve their sentence away from their family, children and partners, on whom they may have to rely to look after their children. That is not acceptable.
	Why are women in prison? Twenty per cent. of women's prisoners have been through the child care system. Fifty per cent. have reported being victims of childhood abuse or domestic violence. Their lives before entering prison have therefore been chaotic. Are we helping to make their lives less chaotic by taking them into prison? Historically, our prison system has been designed to contain potentially violent male offenders. The system is unsuitable to deal with the problems of vulnerable women, many of whom had lives of abuse before entering the prison system. Half of those women have suffered from domestic violence and one third have suffered from gender and sexual abuse. Our most vulnerable women have therefore spent their lives being neglected as children, beaten as wives and imprisoned as women. The majority are not in prison because they are a danger to others; many are there as a result of petty crime. The commonest offences for which women are sent to prison are theft and handling stolen goods. Sixty-four per cent. of women offenders serve sentences of six months or less, and one third of that 64 per cent. have been sexually abused.
	How are we to tackle the emotional, sexual and drug abuse that those women have experienced in their lives? How are we to tackle the illiteracy and restructure the employment opportunities of those serving sentences of six months or less? Would it not be better for usto concentrate on providing the community-based support, punishment and rehabilitation that non-violent offenders who pose very little threat to the wider community are best placed to receive? That would ensure that taxpayers' money was better spent, it would provide more room in our prisons for those who are a danger to others, and it would enable officers in women's prisons to focus on high-risk and repeat offenders. Crucially, the vicious circle of drugs, crime and dependency could be squared before those women's children also become caught up in it.
	I know a prison in western Australia called the Boronia Pre-release Centre for Women. Women are given just one opportunity to go to Boronia. Before they go, they are told "If you fail here, you will not be given this opportunity again." They are allowed to keep their children with them until they reach the age of four, and with their children they live in small units of bungalows. They are offered education, jobs and skills. Hon. Members who visited the prison with me were shocked to discover that one of those skills was the preparation and serving of food, and that so proficient were the women that they provided all the catering facilities for judges on the western Australian circuit. I thought it particularly apt that the judges should be served by women whom they might have sentenced.
	At the time when I visited the prison only one woman had reoffended, and I think we should look to it as an exemplar for the service that we could provide. Certainly, if Wales is to have a women's prison, I hope that it will be based on Boronia.
	This is an important debate. It enables us to think carefully about the needs of women in our world, and about how we can improve their lives and equality of opportunity still further. I am proud to be a member of a Labour Government, and I am pleased that the hon. Member for Solihull recognised the steps that the Government have taken to move the agenda forward. I hope the opportunities that we offer in future will mean that fewer vulnerable women take the road of offending and more follow a different path, the path towards secure families and secure jobs. I hope they will be helped to produce a generation that will continue to raise the status of women, and will allow their opportunities to grow and develop even more.

Maria Miller: The Minister raises the important issue of older women who come into politics. There is much to be said for older women coming into politics when they have perhaps done another career, because they have experience that they can bring to this place or to local government. I appreciate that the Minister drew attention to that age profile to emphasise that such political roles conflict with child care duties, but we should not undermine the contribution that older Members of Parliament and councillors make.
	International women's day is about women seeking equality in society; an equal footing with men. How can they best achieve that? One important way is through the workplace. One of the major changes that has happened in the past few decades is the increased participation of women in the workplace, especially mothers. Now, 80 per cent. of the women who are employed in pregnancy return to work, a fact that I reiterate because I sometimes think that some outside this place can forget it. Those women account for a quarter of our female work force.
	As people who are interested in these matters, we all know that two thirds of women with dependent children work. That is not a new phenomenon but has been a fact for a number of years, but that trend is increasing. It is the norm for children to be brought up with two working parents. It is certainly the norm in my constituency of Basingstoke. It is important for us all to remember that. Some say that the increase in female participation in the work force, especially in the past decade, has made a bigger contribution to global economic growth than developments in China. We cannot underestimate how much the increased participation of women has changed the economic focus of this and many other countries.
	Why women are staying in the work force for longer is often debated in the media. It is perhaps worth revisiting the facts so that we have them before us. Yes, women are having children later. They first establish their jobs and perhaps have higher income potential as a result and that encourages them to go back into the workplace after having children; there is an economic incentive to do so. However, the majority go back not for career development or to keep their minds stimulated, although I am sure that that is an important factor, but because they need the money. They go back for financial reasons. Some 75 per cent. of women go back to work for financial reasons. It is little wonder when one looks at the facts.
	There is an unprecedented level of consumer debt. Credit card debt among British women is now more than £11 billion and unsecured loans to women amount to £20 billion. The average overdraft of a woman in this country is £500. In total, female overdraft debt is £4.6 billion. Perhaps that is the new issue that feminists should be looking at. Debt is an important driving factor in getting women back into the workplace.
	Women are already doing an awful lot to ensure that they go back to work on their own terms. Seventy-five per cent. of women change some aspect of their job after they have had a child. The majority of such changes relate to reduced working hours. It is about trying to improve the work-life balance. It is something on which I certainly think people should have more choice. The choice to return to work is important,and clearly there is a financial imperative for many women.
	The Government have made great strides in increasing maternity provision, expanding child care provision and creating the right to ask for flexible working in certain sectors of the work force. Those are important and positive developments. I cannot underestimate the amount of additional changes that have been made, usually by large employers to their working practices to encourage more of their female workers back into the workplace after having children. Certainly in my constituency of Basingstoke anumber of my larger employers—indeed, employers throughout the constituency—do all that they canto encourage women back into the work force. Why? We have less than 1 per cent. unemployment in Basingstoke. We need to use all our work force to the best degree; otherwise, we will find it difficult to fill jobs.
	So progress is being made, but all too often it is still tough to make jobs pay after having children, despite the changes that have been made. The Minister will doubtless have seen the headlines just 10 days ago on the Equalities Review research, which pointed out that mothers face the worst discrimination in the workplace. Mothers with children aged under 11 are 45 per cent. less likely to be employed than men, despite all the work that the Government have done to date in this area. As I have said, many mothers try to change jobs to give themselves more flexibility; indeed, one in five mothers moves employer after having their first child to try to get more flexibility. However, the simple factis that they all too often move to jobs that are less skilled. They downgrade to a lower-skilled job—this is downward mobility—and as a result their wages fall by approximately 16 per cent. Their wages fall not because they have reduced their hours, but simply because they are doing poorer-skilled jobs.
	The simple fact is that this country's economy is not maximising the full potential of these women. They account for an increasing part of the work force, but we are not maximising the true potential of that growing proportion of our workers. In many ways, we are trying to fight our economic battles with one hand tied behind our backs.
	Reports such as the Leitch report are deeply concerning. There is clear evidence that the market in unskilled jobs—the sort of jobs that many women are being forced to take, so that they can have flexible part-time working to fit around their families—is drying up. There are some 6 million unskilled jobs in this country, but the Leitch report reckons that by 2020, there will be just 500,000. So a group of women is being forced to look at an ever-dwindling supply of low-paid, low-quality jobs that are far below the standard of work that they perhaps undertook before the birth of their child.
	A lot of concern has been expressed about the impact on children of having a working mother. Everybody has a view on this, but a recent UNICEF report indicated some worrying trends in the outcomes for our young people not just in the past few years, but over a long time. Many Members will appreciate the concerns that exist about the rise in antisocial behaviour. I should be interested to hear whether the Minister feels that the trend for women who have had children to take up lower-paid, lower-skilled jobs sits well with trying to solve some of the problems that such reports have pointed out.

Madeleine Moon: Does the hon. Lady accept that the problem is not that women are working, or even that both parents are working, but society's unwillingnessto set boundaries and limits on personal behaviour? That starts with children. Many of the nanny-type programmes on television, in which someone goes into a household where the children are behaving badly, are about helping parents to understand that their role as parents is to set limits and boundaries. That is not to do with working but with taking responsibility as an adult and a parent.

Maria Miller: I would like to agree that the US is different, but I am not sure that it is. As a country, we have a reputation for very long working hours. I do not have the figures at my fingertips, but I think that this country's working hours are among the longest in Europe, if not the longest of all. What problems do women who have had children and who want to re-enter the work place encounter? How can we remove the pressure on them to downgrade their jobs and take lower pay?
	One difficulty has to do with integrating the idea of part-time and flexible working with more senior jobs. For example, just 3.6 per cent. of jobs at the higher occupational and managerial grades are performed by females working part-time. In contrast, well over half of the women in clerical jobs are part-time. That shows the mismatch between the numbers of women able to work part-time in the better paid and more highly skilled jobs and those who can do so in less skilled and lower-paid employment. We need to consider how we can ensure that flexible, part-time working can permeate all levels of the job market.
	At the opening of the debate, I listened with great interest to the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird). She talked about the great advances that had been made with part-time working in the judiciary. I am not sure that I share her positivity about that, as I believe that much work remains to be done to encourage a more flexible way of working in all areas of professional employment. An idea was floated earlier about part-time working or sharing jobs in this place, but I think that that may be a little further off.
	Another problem, according to the statistics, is that women who take up part-time employment on re-entering the work force earn 27 per cent. less per hour than their full-time counterparts. The financial burdens that women face mean that they need to re-enter the work place—and they may also chooseto go back to work—but what can the Government do to support them? Going back to work must be a positive choice for women, and they should not be forced to downgrade and accept lower rates of pay. That will not help us to maximise the potential of women in this country today.
	Many statistics show that there are many benefits to be gained from adopting a more flexible approach to work for women. For example, two thirds of the organisations that have implemented part-time and flexible working report reduced absenteeism and staff turnover. However, we must make sure that the part-time jobs that are available are the right ones, and that they fulfil the potential of the women who do them.
	The Minister for Women and Equality will wind up the debate, and I hope that she will set out what the Government are doing to help mothers to return to the workplace. Helping mothers on benefits back to work is very important, but so is helping all mothers, regardless of whether six months or six years have passed since they had a baby. Too many women in my constituency feel left behind by the advances in IT, for example, but they have also lost confidence in their ability to participate in the workplace. What are the Government doing to help them go back to work and be economically active in a way that fits in with their family commitments and with the training that they received earlier in their working lives?
	Also, what can be done to help small and medium-sized employers, as they are often the ones that find it most difficult to understand the benefits of flexible working for women, both now and in the future? I am not talking about introducing regulation and making them feel that part-time working for women is a burden. Such companies need to be able to understand that flexible working can benefit them—something that I found out when I employed women on a part-time basis in the company that I worked for.
	Earlier today, at the event that many Members attended to mark international women's day, Baroness Boothroyd, the first woman Speaker, reminded me of the words of John Stuart Mill. In his work  The Subjection of Women, he said:
	"I think that almost everyone, in the existing state of opinion in politics and political economy, would admit the injustice of excluding half the human race from the greater number of lucrative occupations, and from almost all high social functions."
	Those words were read out today as we laid flowers at the memorial to Emmeline Pankhurst, and although they were written 140 years ago they are still highly pertinent, so I urge the Government to consider whether the policies they are pursuing truly address the issues.

Diana Johnson: Role models are incredibly important. In Hull, we have had the benefit of Councillor Kath Lavery, who was the portfolio holder for regeneration—a key issue for the city. She led with distinction and came at things from an interesting angle. She was well respected in the business community and the wider community. Unfortunately, she is no longer in the cabinet, but we need role models like that, as my hon. Friend said when talking about her experience in Trafford. In Hull, years ago we took the decision to have a health portfolio holder in the cabinet structure, to address the health needs of the city. That was something new for Hull and it led to some innovative work in relation to the "eat well, do well" scheme, which I have commented on several times and which provides free healthy school meals in the city. That was pioneered and led by a woman cabinet member, Councillor Mary Glew. Having women in the cabinet can often bring a different perspective and a different view, which is welcome.
	In 1994 I stood for election in the London borough of Tower Hamlets as a local authority councillor, and I was a member of that authority for eight years. One of the interesting and unusual things about that local authority was the wider range of ages among councillors; we also had councillors who represented all the different ethnic communities in Tower Hamlets. Many also held full-time jobs, so the council had to adapt itself and think about how it should structure meetings and when was the most appropriate time to hold a full council. Flexibility had to be built in. The council worked quite well and has achieved a great deal.
	In the forthcoming elections in Hull in May—I think that it is the only place in the United Kingdom where this is the case—we will have three 18-year-olds standing for the Labour party, taking advantage of the changes brought in under the Electoral Administration Act 2006, which moved the age at which people can stand as candidates from 21 to 18. However, they are three young men, and it is a bit of a disappointment that we did not manage to get an 18-year-old woman to stand, because that would have sent a message about good role models. It would have shown that young women have a role to play in making decisions locally, just as young men do.
	I want to comment on the NHS Appointments Commission, whose job is to make appointments to primary care trusts and acute trusts. The excellent chair of the Hull teaching primary care trust is a woman, but I noticed that recently, all non-executive director posts have gone to white men. I raised the matter with the commission, because there is an issue about non-executive roles being held by a representative group, and not just white men. For too long, white men have dominated the decision-making bodies in this country. The NHS Appointments Commission took my comments seriously, and I think that it understands the need to be a little more proactive in seeking out people—women—who have the skills and ability to work for a primary care trust.
	I want to discuss women and enterprise. There is a fairness issue to consider, and we should make sure that women entrepreneurs are properly supported. There is also an economic argument; we should make sure that women use their talents and ability to set themselves up in business and help to regenerate areas such as Yorkshire and the Humber. Women entrepreneurs make up 6.8 per cent. of the UK's working population. Obviously, that figure is small, and it needs to grow. Yorkshire and the Humber do not fare too badly, but I found that a number of women traders are sole traders working in the service industries, and particularly in hairdressing. There is merit in that, but we need to move women on, so that they grow their businesses and think about diversifying into other areas.
	I was interested by the PricewaterhouseCoopers report about senior women managers that was published today. Unfortunately, some of the figures show a reduction in the number of women in senior posts, but an article on the report shows that
	"among Britain's top 100 stock market-listed companies there are now more women in "head of function" roles—which means they have someone reporting to them—than there were in 2002. Five years ago 11% of these positions were held by women while this has now increased to 20%."
	That shows that there is good work going on.
	I particularly want to talk about the comments of Jackie Brierton, who heads Prowess, an organisation that supports women who want to start up in business. She says that a lot of women get to a certain level in the corporate world but then opt out and try to set up business on their own, because of the lack of flexibility that has already been mentioned today, and because of the focus on having to work long hours in a rigid way, and that is interesting. She says that in the past the evidence for that change has been anecdotal, but the report provides statistical evidence for that view.
	Women in Yorkshire and the Humber have benefited greatly from an organisation called Women's Enterprise in the Humber, which offers mentoring and support. Maureen Foers, the body's project director, is a fabulous role model for women who want to set themselves up in business. She has had 35 years' practical experience of running her own businesses, and she has assisted many women in the area who want to develop and grow their businesses. It was interesting to read about her background.
	In 1971 Maureen established a business, and she said that it was an extremely isolating experience for a woman. Business networks mainly had male members, and that created a challenge for her, as it was necessary for her to bite the bullet and join them. To date, she has been the only female president of the Hull and Humber chamber of commerce. She was the first woman to be elected to the CBI's Yorkshire and the Humber regional council, and she has been an active member of many local, regional and national partnerships. However, what is really special about Maureen is that she gives her time so freely to women who want to start up businesses. She is incredible. She is a very busy woman. As I said earlier, it is incumbent on all of us in business or politics to encourage and support women wherever we can, and what Maureen does is a fine example of that.
	Hull university put together the "Empathy-Edge" project with European money to support women in management positions through e-mentoring, using various new technologies to ensure that women were supported when they took on their first management role. I had the great pleasure of going to one of its conferences and of hearing mentors and those they were mentoring talk about the positive outcome that that relationship had brought about and how both mentors and those they were mentoring had benefited from it.
	Therefore, excellent work is being done, but more needs to be done. There are many challenges facing us, but I am very proud to be a part of the current Parliament. Of my intake, 26 of the 40 Labour MPs were women. That is fabulous, but we need to do more. I am sure that all the parties are trying to do more, but it is Labour that has delivered for women, not only in the number of MPs, but in legislation over the past10 years.

Angela Watkinson: I thank the hon. Lady for that contribution, but we are not allowed to say such things in our party either. However, once the words are out it is not possible to unsay them; it is not possible to get the genie back into the bottle. If somebody has said something, it has been said.
	I wish to refer to a parliamentary trip I went on to Iran in 2001, soon after I was elected to the House. It was a cross-party visit for women MPs on women's issues. There were 14 committees in the Iranian Parliament, and there was one woman MP on each committee. The trouble was that none of them spoke English, and I could not speak their language. Therefore, we were entirely reliant on interpreters. Every time I met one of those women, I asked the same question: "Are you involved in the whole spectrum of policy formation, or are you just consulted on how a particular policy will affect women?" My question was in my language, her answer was in her language. What happened as the words went back and forth I do not know, but I never did get an answer to that question.
	The real challenge is equality of opportunity. It is not an easy matter because of one unavoidable, fundamental difference between men and women—that is, women have children and men do not, and that will never change. All the inequalities for women relate to that basic fact. Babies and children are treated equally, whichever gender they happen to be. In education, girls and boys are treated equally, although that has not always been so.
	I will not disclose how long ago this was, but when I was in grammar school—I went to a co-educational grammar school, which was quite advanced for its time—it was not unusual for a male teacher to say toa girl pupil, "It doesn't really matter if you don't understand, because you're only going to get married." The word "only" made the remark even worse. It was demeaning because it implied that we were second class citizens of less significance than the boys, who would do all the important things in life. Happily, that would not be tolerated in our schools today, and the thought would not even pass through the heads of the teachers or head teachers in my schools.
	The trouble starts when girls get into their teens. That is when they are extremely vulnerable because they are the ones who will produce the next generation. One of the places we fall down is in sex education in schools, which relies on the provision of a great deal of sex information. What girls need to be told is that if they become sexually active very young, they run the risk of contracting sexually transmitted infections, which can last for many years and affect their fertility, which the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) referred to in her remarks, or it can lead to unwanted teenage pregnancies and abortions, which can have long-term emotional and physical consequences.
	What girls need to be told in those lessons is the realities of life; that if they indulge in precocious, under-age sex, often with unsuitable boys who have not the slightest intention of getting married or being a father, and certainly have no means of supporting any resulting child, those girls will bear full responsibility for bringing up a child at a time when they are still children themselves. Their education, training and employment prospects will be severely curtailed for quite a few years.

Angela Watkinson: The hon. Lady is right. Sex is not just a casual leisure activity, because the outcomes are so long term and serious. The emotional relationships that attach to that are very important and should be stressed. Girls need to know that they are the ones who will have to bear the brunt of the outcome. Boys often disappear into the ether, and women—we multi-tasking women—carry the consequences. Girls need to plan their lives with regard to how, when and with whom they will have children.
	A young woman recently attended my advice surgery. She had been in an unsuitable partnership, from which she had a 10-year-old child. Her violent, drug-taking ex-partner had access to her daughter. She had gone to court to ask whether that drug-taking partner could be prevented from taking her daughter in a car when he had access, because she felt that that would be unsafe. The judge took the view that provided that the man undertook not to take drugs for 24 hours before he had access, the child would be perfectly safe. I do not know how that could possibly be monitored—the judge was of the opinion that the man's mother could monitor him on the day before he had access. A lot more thought needs to go into the decisions that come out of courts. It is certainly important that both parents should have access to children, but in the interests of child welfare, a child should not be driven around in a car by a drug-taking father just so he can access his right to his child.
	Very early sexual activity can lead to, for example, chlamydia. Girls are often blissfully unaware that they have that infection until much later in life. When they have settled down, married and want to start a family, they find that they cannot do so and that the damage has already been done, and they need to be warned about such things.
	The biggest effect on equality of opportunity for girls is proper sex education, because it affects their quality of life, employment opportunities and career development.

Barbara Keeley: Like other hon. Members, I am pleased to speak on international women's day. I want to talk about women and work, some of the barriers that have already been overcome and those that still need to be overcome if we are to have a more equal society.
	I want to begin by describing my political journey to becoming a Member of Parliament. I had a professional career as an engineer and manager with IBM but I also realised the need for women to be involved in politics and in public life. It is interesting in the context of the debate to note that I began to feel that I could not pursue my career with IBM properly if I was also involved in politics. It seemed to be one or the other. In the mid-1990s, I was elected into local government in Trafford, and I managed the responsibility of being a councillor by becoming a self-employed consultant and adviser. It is interesting that it was difficult for me to pursue both my previous career and politics. Although Trafford had evening meetings, many councils in Greater Manchester had daytime meetings, which made it difficult for both men and women who worked to be councillors. As I mentioned in an earlier intervention, the Labour group on Trafford council at the time provided a good set of role models, as it had a female council leader and, later, a female deputy.
	In 2001, I first tried to be selected as an MP. To expand my CV, I thought that it was important to work nationally on health and social care issues. In 2004, I was selected as the candidate for Worsley constituency. In May 2005, I became one of the 26 women Labour MPs in what was, as several of my hon. Friendshave mentioned, the first predominantly female new intake.
	When I first became involved in politics, when Labour was in opposition, the ideas discussed in meetings were the need for child care, support for families, better maternity leave and pay and even the right to paternity leave. We talked about equal pay a lot, and closing the gaps in pay and opportunities between women and men. Thinking back, I never had equal pay when I worked for IBM: I even trained men who were at a much more junior level than me and then discovered that they earned more than me. Certainly, equal pay was an issue, as was the minimum wage. Matters such as flexible working and support for carers were not even discussed. It seemed unlikely that we would make progress on many of those issues.
	Today, however, on international women's day, it must be said that we have made substantial progress within a decade. In May 1997, very soon after the Labour Government came into office, a national child care strategy was introduced. That was one of the most crucial contributions to the area of women and work. The number of child care places is now double the 1997 level, at 1.3 million. Most importantly, for women with young children, free places in nursery or early education are provided for three and four-year-olds.
	In April 1999, the national minimum wage was introduced, and two thirds of women benefited from that legislation. We should pay tribute to women Labour MPs, some of whom are in the Chamber today, who fought and stayed up at night, as did male colleagues, to get that legislation through.
	In 1999, the Government also introduced the first ever national carers strategy. In 2002, the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act was introduced, which allowed positive measures to select more women candidates. That is relevant to the earlier debate that we had. The legislation was key, and most or all of the parties in the House will have to embrace such positive action if they want to make progress.
	In 2003, the child tax credit and working tax credit were introduced. Importantly, as flexibility is key for women in work, flexible working rights were introduced for parents of young or disabled children.
	The debate has touched on the issue of domestic violence, but I shall not talk about that in depth. However, the introduction of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 was important. Across England and Wales, there are now 64 specialist domestic violence courts, including one in Salford. As a Salford MP, I intend to work with that court, see how it is doing and try to champion it, which is an important thing for women MPs to do.
	November 2004 also saw the introduction of the equality standard for sport to reduce inequalities in sport and physical activity. I took part in a debate on young people and sport in Westminster Hall last week—I was the only woman MP who did so, which is perhaps surprising—which explored the falling-off of participation in sport by young people, and particularly by girls and young women. That debate has now been dubbed the hair dryers debate, because we ended up discussing whether leisure facilities had hair dryers, and how off-putting young women found it if they could not dry their hair. Much the same issues are being explored by Dame Kelly Holmes, who is doing excellent work as national school sport champion.
	The Childcare Act 2006 was important, in that it was legislation devoted entirely to child care. Also important are the Women and Work Commission, on which there is a Government action plan—we have just had a "one year on" update—and additional work to reduce the gender pay gap. Legislation introduced during the past decade is still going through Parliament: the Pensions Bill, for instance. That Bill is hugely important to women, particularly in reducing the number of years for which they must work to build up a state pension and in providing credits for caring as well as for child care. We should salute Barbara Castle for introducing child care credits, but caring is just as important as child care in women's lives.
	The commitment to sign the European convention on human trafficking is an important step, and we look forward to its ratification. April is a busy time this year: paid maternity leave is to be extended to nine months, the right to request flexible working is to be extended to carers of adults, and there is to be a public-sector gender equality duty.
	All that suggests that we have made great progress so far, but as others have said today, we still have much to do to ensure equality. It is now acknowledged that there will be wasted potential in the United Kingdom world of work if women's pay continues to be lower than men's and if there is less time for caring, causing more and continued stress for people with child-care or other caring responsibilities. As recent reports have pointed out, that waste of potential will continue unless the world of work changes.
	People need flexible working for a variety of purposes. They need it for parenting, or to care for older family members or a disabled child, but they need it for other reasons too. In some wards in my constituency, incomes are very low. We shall be able to help families and lone parents only if they can study, or train and receive skills qualifications, and move on. However, it is difficult for those who are working and have children to undertake courses or training.
	Women play an important role in volunteering and working in the community. When I was a parliamentary candidate, I noticed that all the tenants' or community groups to whom I spoke were run by women. I salute the women in my constituency who run community, tenants' and residents' groups. The estates in my community would not work as well as they do without the wonderful women who run them.
	The Minister said earlier that it should be possible for all jobs to be part-time unless there was a solid reason to the contrary. The demand for part-time and flexible working will continue to grow. Over the next few years and decades more women will be working, and the number of carers, or people with caring responsibilities, will grow as well. It has already reached 6 million, and is expected to reach at least 10 million by 2010 and increase further thereafter. People will work for longer as a result of what we are doing here: changes in the retirement age are already planned for women born in the 1950s, and there will be changes for both men and women as the legislation kicks in. I see all those factors as drivers of change in the demand for flexible working.
	Let me identify some other issues that are relevant to the world of women and work. I return to women's representation, because we ourselves are drivers of change in that women Members of Parliament put these matters on to the agenda. How are we doing? We rank 61st in terms of women's representation in politics, and when I think of the time I have spent striving to improve the lot of women in public life, I do not consider that very impressive.
	I was pleased, as other colleagues will have been, to be one of 40 Labour MPs elected in 2005. There were 26 women in that group. That was the first predominantly female in-take of MPs. My personal experience is that that makes a difference for us. It makes a difference in that we have a grouping. Some of our male colleagues have complained that sometimes they feel out of it and outnumbered. I think, "Fine, I have experienced that for decades. You will develop some sympathy if you know what we experienced." I was the first woman MP for Worsley and the first woman MP to represent Wigan. Since then, I am happy to say that the two local authorities, Salford and Wigan, have both appointed women chief executives. Barbara Spicer and Joyce Redfearn are excellent women and I hope that their appointment makes a difference in those authorities. They must be exceptional people already because only 21 per cent. of local authority chief executives are women. There are, sadly, very few in the north-west region. We have some way to go in local government.
	Fifty-two per cent. of civil servants are women but only 26 per cent. of women in the civil service are in senior management jobs. That is up slightly on last year's figures. In Labour Members' meetings with Cabinet Ministers, we ask them to keep reporting back to us. It behoves women MPs to keep asking Cabinet Ministers what the position is on representation in their Departments.
	From April, a public sector duty on gender equality will come into force. Public bodies will have to look at ways of improving that. We know that, without action, it would take 20 years to achieve equality in the civil service at senior management level. We have debated the figures. Depressingly, whatever figures we take, it will take over 70 years to get a representative House of Commons. Clearly, we are moving faster on that in the Labour party, for reasons that are obvious, I think.
	Since I worked in the private sector, there has developed talk of glass ceilings and sticky floors. The first is defined as women being hindered in their progress to senior levels because of discrimination and/or—this is the important thing and perhaps where the debate is going—conditions of work at senior levels making it impossible for them to progress. I personally think that that is the thing to look at rather more. Sticky floors is defined as women being unable to progress from entry level jobs owing to the same attitudes or to the conditions of work. The Prime Minister visited ASDA recently and was told by a woman who was working part-time that she could not progress to being a manager because she could not take on shift work—she had child care commitments. It is clear that at every level that is an issue.
	A couple of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), referred to the PricewaterhouseCoopers audit on women holding senior management positions. I understand that the audit was just of women holding senior management positions in the FTSE 350 companies and not of women in all professions, as was said earlier.
	Comment has been made on that audit:
	"This is a wake-up call for the FTSE 350 companies in Britain... they are creating problems for the future. Women are exiting corporate life".
	That is an issue. Interestingly, that audit, which is being reported today, is borne out by work done by the Equal Opportunities Commission, which found that thousands of women are missing from senior posts in business. We may need seriously to look at the reasons for that exodus. Lack of flexibility is being cited as one of the reasons. The commission recently said in one of its reports that flexible working is still seen
	"as a deviation from the norm".
	That issue must be looked at.
	The smaller number of women in senior management positions is significant because those are the women who may reach the boards of their companies in years to come. It may be that they are entrepreneurial and are getting out to start their own businesses, but that is not going to help the boards of those companies in years to come when they are still all male, or predominantly male. In the same way as there is a journey to achieving election here as an MP—in my case, local government and working on national health and social care issues—there is a journey by women on the career ladders in British companies. It should concern us that women appear to be coming off that ladder before they get anywhere near the top.
	I have touched on the need for flexible working, and I want to conclude by running through some aspects of the caring role of women, which is also an important factor. Obviously both men and women are carers, but women are much more likely to care at the heavier end of the caring commitment. Women are more likely to care for a child with a disability while men are more likely to care for a spouse and they may do so after they have retired from work.
	Importantly, research has been done by the Future Foundation into a generation of women in their 40s and 50s who are now caught between working and the need to care for an elderly relative. It is estimated that that group will grow by 50 per cent. by 2020. Indeed, increased longevity will mean that many more people will have to become supercarers, who look after an elderly relative as well as caring for either children or grandchildren. It is estimated that there are about2.5 million supercarers, but that with population changes that figure will rise to 3.9 million. Most are aged between 45 and 55, and 80 per cent. of them—2 million—are women.
	Unsurprisingly, supercarers are less likely to work—38 per cent. as compared to the national average of 45 per cent. of carers who work. So this dual care is a new factor that we have to start to look at. Of course, it is increasingly accepted that caring at the heavier end of commitment has an impact on the health and well-being of the carer. Research has, not surprisingly, shown that dual care has an even heavier impact on the life of the carer physically and mentally. Only 65 per cent. of dual carers are satisfied with their life compared with a national average of 75 per cent., and well-being among such carers is less than 60 per cent. compared with the national average of 65 per cent.
	We have made great strides in getting carers on to the Government's agenda. In 1999 the first national strategy for carers was introduced. Three Bills have been introduced by Labour Members that have given carers rights to assessment of their needs and rights in relation to employment, leisure time and educational opportunities. I introduced a ten-minute Bill—the Identification and Support of Carers (Primary Health Care) Bill—last year, and I hope to bring it back at some point.
	Local authorities have received carers grant to fund breaks for carers and other forms of support. Recently, the Government announced the new deal for carers, which included extra money for respite care, a national advice helpline and an expert carers programme. They are all welcome, but most important, at the same time the Government announced a review of the national carers strategy. That is a welcome development.
	I am acting this year as the parliamentary champion for carers week from 11 to 17 June—I hope that hon. Members have it in their diaries. In the next few months, I hope that we can listen to carers and their needs as part of that review. We need to find further ways to meet their needs and tackle their issues, to give them the same opportunities to work, progress in work and undertake training and have the balance in their lives that we are striving to make possible for women throughout society.

Annette Brooke: I thank my hon. Friend for her helpful intervention. That is exactly what happens in the east end, where the project is working with ethnic minority groups. It is using the Grameen model, and of course some of the women are from Bangladesh. That project is working towards overcoming the sharia law aspect in terms of interest and profit. Although interest is paid, it is paid into a pot that is then lent again and the institution is basically non-profit making.
	Microcredit reverses conventional banking practice by removing the need for collateral and creating a banker system based on mutual trust, accountability and participation. It works on the basis that the bank should go to the borrowers, not the other way round. Interest is charged on the loan and used to help other women. The rates of interest—at a typical annual percentage rate of 19 per cent.—are far lower than rates at which someone who is impoverished could hope to borrow from any other source, if any were available.
	The repayment rates are remarkable. It is perhaps a feature of the women who repay, but the group support is also vital. In projects that I have seen overseas, the loans have been very small, £20 or £50, but in Street Cred a typical first loan is for about £500. There is still pressure to repay the loan in a relatively short time, but I think that that adds to the project's success.
	Interestingly, only 39 per cent. of women who join a borrowing circle actually take on a loan. The others benefit from one-to-one support and business help and are then able to access other sources of finance. A succession of loans is made in about 12 per cent. of cases, but the important point is that the people involved get off to a start and are then able to enter the main banking system. Microfinance deserves a lot more support because it offers a way to tackle financial exclusion in our affluent society.
	I love stories about microfinance. They bring the subject to life, so I shall tell one very quickly. Karen Winchester founded Diveen's Cuisine, a Caribbean restaurant and catering business in Walthamstow. At first, she had difficulty getting information and support, and many of the places that she approached were concerned that she had no experience of running her own business or a restaurant, and no collateral to access credit.
	Ms Winchester found a leaflet about Street Cred and joined a borrowing circle in 2002. She attended a number of business workshops and had one-to-one meetings, and began her business by providing catering for events. Later, she opened her restaurant. Her first loan was used to purchase catering equipment and, when she paid that back, she took out another one to improve the restaurant. She found that she able to pay the loans back without coming under the same pressure that she would have experienced with a bank. Sometimes during the week, she uses her restaurant to host her borrowing circle—an example of how good practice can be spread.
	Time is short, so I must not indulge in giving the House more examples. I shall end by quoting a "Gracious Ordinance" that the "Honourable Lords" of the Royal Courts of Justice, the highest court in England, made in 1871. They said:
	"No loans to any woman whatsoever."
	That makes it clear that they thought that lending to women was a bad idea.
	We have made some progress since then, but it is important that we appreciate that microfinance is good for women. In addition, women are good for microfinance internationally and, as we celebrate international women's day, we should remember the poorest women across the world. However, we must not forget the women in our society, for whom relative poverty can be very hard to overcome.

Lynda Waltho: First, may I apologise for leaving during the speech of the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing)? That was no reflection on her speech, but I needed to attend a Committee sitting upstairs. Moreover, I apologise to hon. Members of all parties for missing what I am sure were important contributions.
	I am pleased to be called to speak on international women's day, especially as its theme is "Ending Impunity For Violence Against Women And Girls". I am also proud to support the cross-party early-day motion tabled by the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt), which highlights the fact that violence against women is the most common, but least punished, crime across the world.
	Domestic violence is the most common form of abuse of women worldwide. It does not respect country, race, education, class or religion, and it is a problem that I want to highlight further. We have heard already that domestic violence affects one women in four in the UK, and that an average of two women every week die at the hands of violent partners. Much has been done to address the problem over the past10 years, through improving the criminal justice system and raising awareness.
	Tackling domestic violence is truly an equality issue, for how will women ever achieve equality when 25 per cent. of women living in the UK suffer violence at home? The perpetrators of domestic violence take control of their victims. They rob a woman of her dignity, self-respect and confidence. Sometimes they take away her friends or children and, in extreme cases, her life. It affects every part of a woman's life—her children, her physical and mental health, and her prospects. For some women who suffer domestic violence, often on a daily basis, finding the strength to report the abuse can take years. Some estimates indicate that a woman will suffer up to 34 attacks before making an official report. With the lack of stability in their lives and the constant threat of violence, it becomes impossible for women even to think about a career structure for themselves or to plan a stable future for their children. Domestic violence prevents millions of women from achieving equality; it robs them of their independence and of control over their own lives.
	The economic arguments are compelling. Research by Sylvia Walby of the university of Leeds into the cost of domestic violence shows that the total cost to services amounts to £3.1 billion, while the loss to the economy is £2.7 billion. The human and emotional cost is estimated at more than £17 billion a year. I do not deny that definite progress on dealing with the issue has been made over the past 10 years. Domestic violence accounts for 15 per cent. of violent crime in the UK—down from 25 per cent. Although I welcome that progress, Members will agree that the statistic is still too high.
	I welcomed the announcement on Monday of a cash boost of nearly £2 million to double the number of local multi-agency domestic violence action teams— MARACs—which involve key agencies. The police, the probation, education, health and housing services and the voluntary sector work together on cases, which means that they can build up a comprehensive picture of the abuse and develop the programme of action that best supports and protects a domestic violence victim and their family. That multi-agency initiative is fantastic, and is at last an example of real joined-up work across departments. I hope that it will give victims much more comprehensive support than the rather piecemeal help that some women have received.
	As my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary said earlier, the Government have provided £3 million to seed-fund independent domestic violence advisers—IDVAs. In effect, such advisers walk beside the victim throughout the process, providing a single point of contact both inside and outside the criminal justice system for the duration of the case, and sometimes afterwards. Such services are the key to providing continuing support for the victim to make sure that she does not drop out halfway through the process.
	Although I welcome both those initiatives, they need to be rolled out on a larger scale if they are to have a significant effect on domestic violence. It is no good planning excellent initiatives unless we put them into practice, so I welcome my Government's focus on those programmes.
	The introduction of specialist domestic violence courts, one of which serves my constituency and sits every week, is a great step forward. Such courts play an important role in reducing reoffending and in decreasing the number of victims who drop out of the process, to which I referred earlier. As it is so hard for women to report domestic violence initially, it is vital that they trust and believe in our criminal justice system. They must be able to feel that if they come forward justice will be done and they will be properly supported throughout the process. Early evidence shows that in some areas of the country reoffending rates have been cut by between 50 and 90 per cent. and, importantly, that the drop-out rate of victims during the prosecution process has gone down significantly.
	A further important aspect of the issue is support for children of victims of domestic violence. In a survey of mothers who had experienced domestic violence, 99 per cent. said that their children had seen them crying because of the violence, 73 per cent. said that their children had witnessed violent incidents and 10 per cent. had been sexually abused in front of their children. Unfortunately, domestic violence in families does not stop with the mother; 27 per cent. of mothers said their violent partner had also physically assaulted their children. Indeed, that is often the trigger for many women to report the abuse. There can be wide-reaching short and long-term effects on the children—affecting their health, their school work, their confidence and their future.
	A fantastic project in my constituency aims to deal with those after-effects and is already seeing positive results. The "My Space, My Time" project is supported by Barnardo's and run by a dynamic young woman, Michele Clark. She provides a service in the Dudley borough to children and young people between the ages of five and 13 who have been affected by domestic violence. Her work to unpick what the children have seen is absolutely vital and helps to deal with any aggressive learned behaviour as a result of exposure to such violence. Michelle helps the children to express their feelings about what they experienced through play, drawings, talking and acting. If the learned behaviour is not challenged, it will obviously have a detrimental effect on the child's development and will add to the possibility of social exclusion or of the cycle continuing.
	Michelle also provides advice to women who are suffering or have suffered domestic violence about safety planning for their children. She is having a lot of success with the children, but tells me that she is overwhelmed with work. So many women and children across the borough need the support that she can offer that she needs more staff, but sustained funding is not available. To return to my previous point, if we are to undo the damage caused to women and children by domestic violence, projects such as that must be funded—and funded well.
	The Sanctuary project recently announced by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government—a scheme to install safe rooms in homes—can help in particular cases and has been used with success across the country. I would really like to see it rolled out in Dudley. The room features strong windows, door locks and anti-arson letter boxes so that the victim can stay in her home and does not have to move out, taking her children and her belongings in a plastic bag. She does not have to uproot the children from all that is stable in their lives. Although such safe rooms do not tackle the causes of domestic violence or punish the perpetrator, they can allow women to feel safer in their own homes—they do not have to upset their whole life. There are already examples of these safe rooms saving women's lives.
	To complete the jigsaw, much more work must be done with young men and perpetrators of domestic violence. Punishing the perpetrators is not enough: their behaviour patterns need to be modified and their attitudes changed. They must acknowledge and be able to see the effect that their behaviour is having on their families.
	I welcome those innovative ideas, which have worked across the country, and I hope to see many more implemented in Dudley. I am saddened to say, however, that unless significant amounts of sustainable funding are ploughed into making these ideas a reality, they will remain just that—ideas.
	There are so many areas where we could be doing more work to tackle domestic violence that I cannot possibly go into them all. They range from finding more ways to reach and support pregnant women—30 per cent. of domestic violence starts during pregnancy and existing violence often escalates—to providing enough funding for hostels and refuges so that women who have to escape domestic violence have somewhere safe to go.
	Our commitment to tackling domestic violence must be far reaching and it must be sustained. It is no good simply acknowledging the scale of the problem and providing funding for projects only here and there. The Government and local authorities must continue to put their money where their mouths are and they really must continue to follow through. I am proud of how far we have come in tackling domestic violence over the past 10 years, but I am aware that we need to do a lot more. Domestic violence perpetuates inequality by degrading, isolating and controlling women, and until we eradicate it from our society we will never have true equality.

Fiona Mactaggart: I wanted to take this opportunity to speak about three aspects of violence against women: forced marriage, treatment of women in prison, and prostitution. I am very glad that the Prime Minister's announcement on forced marriage legislation means that I do not need to speak about the first aspect. On prisons, Baroness Corston's report is forthcoming shortly, so I will leave that important debate until it is published. I want to give my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) a chance to contribute, so I shall speak briefly about the issue of prostitution.
	Members will know that when I was a Minister I had the privilege of launching the Government's strategy on prostitution. In doing so, I changed the policy for zones of tolerance of prostitution that had been outlined in a consultation document to one that focused much more on the safety of the women and dealing with the men who paid for sex. The evidence shows that that was the right approach. The countries that have licensed or regulated prostitution have seen a dramatic increase in all facets of the sex industry. There has been a huge increase in people trafficking and child prostitution, and indications of an increase in violence against women.
	I want the Government to go further than I was able to persuade them to go. I want them to look at Sweden, which introduced legislation that, first, criminalises the buying of sex, secondly, decriminalises the selling of sex and, thirdly, provides proper support services to help women to escape from the capture that is prostitution. In just five years, Sweden has dramatically reduced the number of its women in prostitution. In the capital city of Stockholm, the number of women in street prostitution has been reduced by two thirds and the number of men paying for sex has been reduced by 80 per cent. In addition, the number of foreign women being trafficked into Sweden has fallen massively. The Swedish Government estimate that in the past few years only 200 to 400 women and girls have been trafficked into Sweden—a figure that is negligible compared with the 15,000 to 17,000 women a year who are sex trafficked into neighbouring Finland.
	The big trick in Sweden was not just to pass the two laws, but to provide the support that women need to leave prostitution. Things did not start working until the police were trained. The problem about an effective prostitution strategy is that it depends on the commitment of the police. When the police were trained about the new powers to help women to leave prostitution, there was a massive transformation. The police understood that prostitution is a form of male violence against women, where the exploiter or buyer should be punished and the victim or prostitute needs to be helped. They started to put women into projects to reduce the level of drug abuse among women, reduce the number of women involved in prostitution, and reduce the damage to their children.
	Among our police forces, there is a patchy approach to tackling prostitution. Of the 629 successful prosecutions for kerb crawling in Britain, Cleveland—one of our smallest police forces—was responsible for 106. Let me praise Cleveland police force. It has the sense not only to prosecute men who pay for sex, but to arrange with the magistrates courts to deal with all the prosecutions on one day and with the local newspaper to publicise the names and addresses of the men involved. As a result, very few of the men come from Cleveland. The men in that area know what happens.
	Our policy is only three quarters of the way towards the policy that we need. We ought to adopt the policy that Sweden has adopted. Even within the framework of the present prostitution policy, an enormous difference can be made simply by the way in which local police forces choose to police prostitution and paying for sex. I cannot find any successful prosecutions for kerb crawling from Thames Valley. As a Thames Valley MP, I hope that that is a failure in the statistics. There are no cautions for kerb crawling either.
	In a funny way, I am not surprised. In order to get better policing of prostitution in my constituency, I had to persuade local businesses to raise £16,000 for a camera in the area where prostitution affects Slough. The local businesses were happy to do that. Slough council, unfortunately, was not. Our police said, "Yes, it's priority, but not enough of one." Luckily, the council offered us a slot to watch the camera, so itcan have an effect. When local communities are besieged—it feels like that—by prostitution, when people have to take their children to school via drug litter, and when they bring their children back from Brownies and see men and women having sex in people's back gardens, they cannot bear it. They feel that their home is not their home, and we have a responsibility to tackle that.
	When I introduced the Government's policy, I was attacked for including a proposal to ensure that if two women worked together in a flat, it would not be treated as a brothel, and I am unashamed of that. It is right to make the penalty for brothel-keeping 14 years in prison, but two women who are prostituting themselves together should not be sent to prison for 14 years. I ask the media not to take cheap shots, but instead to let us make sure that between us we have a policy that keeps women who are involved in prostitution safer. Last year in Ipswich we had a horrible reminder of how dangerous the profession is. Let us not fall for the myth that it is the oldest profession, and that we will always have to live with it, because we can get rid of it. The way to do that is to target the men who pay for sex and who are responsible for violence against women.

Joan Ruddock: It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), and so many other colleagues who have spoken.
	In 1997, the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs, and I had the great privilege of becoming the first Ministers with responsibility for women in the country. Our agenda was to develop a child care strategy, family-friendly working, and action on violence against women. I am glad to say that the agenda survived our departure, and that so many of the successes in those policy areas have been mentioned today.
	We also said that we would look into the issue of process. We wanted to ensure the mainstreaming of gender in every Department, and we wanted equalityof gender in public appointments, so I decided to take a little survey last week. I acknowledge that it is much more difficult to set up those processes than to check on many of the policies of which we have spoken and on the Government's good delivery. Discrimination against women is often invisible, and people who exercise authority over others often do not know that they are discriminating. Indeed, women may not realise that they are subject to discrimination, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Barbara Keeley) said.
	I asked Departments about their processes, because collecting statistics and taking specific steps to analyse gender impacts is critical to the proper delivery of equality. I asked Departments to tell me about their gender strategy, and I am sorry to say that two Departments—the Home Office and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—failed to reply. All others did, but no Department has a gender strategy. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary and my hon. Friend the Minister for Women and Equality who are on the Front Bench will take that point back to their discussion groups, because there is much more work to be done. That is not to diminish in any way the brilliant work that has already been done.
	When I asked Departments whether they had a gender equality action plan, the majority of Departments said either that they did, or that they were developing one and that they would certainly have it in place by the deadline, which is 30 April. I pay tribute to my colleagues on the Front Bench, because their answers were exemplary. I wanted to share with the House all that the Departments were doing, because it is so important and interesting. People rarely know that such work is going on, or the extent to which civil servants are committed to advancing gender equality. The Departments varied in what they said, but, looking at the clock, I see that I do not have the opportunity to tell the House what they said. Some were much more expansive than others, and some clearly have very good practice in consulting widely throughout their Department—for example, some involve stakeholders and have women's networks—and in bringing everything together. The Ministry of Defence and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office were able to tell me that they had got ahead and were developing strategies and publishing documents even last year, before the requirement was in place.
	I also took the trouble to consider public appointments. When the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs, and I began our jobs as Ministers with responsibility for women, we looked for a commitment to ensure that 50 per cent. of appointments were women. Departments gave that commitment, and they have been working towards meeting it ever since. The Department for Education and Skills is the closest, with 44.8 per cent. of public appointments made by Ministers in that Department going to women. Sadly, four Departments have made such appointments at a rate of below 25 per cent. and a couple of them have slipped back: the Foreignand Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development.
	Let me say a few words about DFID, as it is the Department that I have come to know best inmy capacity as a member of the International Development Committee. The first question that I asked the Secretary of State when I became a member of the Committee was whether there was a gender strategy. There was not. The Department said that it would develop one. It has been making progress, and I understand that a document on that was either published yesterday or will be published today. Half of the senior civil servants in that Department are women.  [Interruption] The Minister for Women and Equality is showing me that she has a copy of that document with her; I have not got mine yet. However, we found that of 28 appearances before the Committee, only seven were by women. Therefore, although that Department has women in senior positions, it is not sending them to our Committee. It is crucial that DFID has gender equality strategies, because the women of the developing countries of the world and of the very poorest countries are suffering the most.
	Let me conclude by telling an anecdote. I have recently returned from Ethiopia. Women are running every project in water and sanitation in Ethiopia. One women's group had built a lot of shower cubicles and latrines which they were going to have primarily for women, but they suddenly realised that they could give half of them to the men. They charged the menfor their use, and they set up a tea stall alongside. Women display such entrepreneurship and initiative throughout the world—in our communities, and particularly in developing countries.

Meg Munn: This has been a wide-ranging and interesting debate and I pay tribute to all Members who have taken part. It is an honour to follow in the line of previous Ministers for Women and to be able to respond to the debate on behalf of the Government. I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) for her opening speech. We both entered the House in 2001 and Members might be surprised to learn that we used to be mistaken for each other—that might still be the case so far as I know. However, no one could mistake my hon. and learned Friend's commitment to fighting for women's rights, which she has done consistently both before and since entering the House.
	I also want briefly to mention that today Labour women MPs invited to the House some of their women community champions so that they could see what we do. Some of them said that they were inspired by meeting women MPs and spending some time here to think about getting involved by participating in either local or central Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Ms Johnson) talked about that.
	Today is an historic day for this House. Some might not have noticed, but earlier my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House issued a statement outlining that from the next Session of Parliament gender-neutral drafting of legislation will be used for new Bills that are introduced. I am pleased that we are able to announce that on international women's day, and I am delighted that my right hon. Friend took up that suggestion, following a conversation that took place with him. That practice will end drafting that reinforces gender stereotypes. It will also bring this House into line with practices adopted by the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly and with those of other English-speaking countries.
	Several Members raised the issue of prisons. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs. Moon) gave a detailed and knowledgeable speech on that, and the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) also talked about it. The Government are well aware that there are significant issues in respect of women in prison, which is why Baroness Scotland asked Baroness Corston to complete an inquiry into that. We look forward to receiving that report shortly.
	Unsurprisingly, Members raised a range of issues to do with violence against women. My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) made a speech, and I pay tribute to her for the work that she has done in developing the strategy on prostitution. I have had the opportunity to visit Sweden and to learn directly about the issues that are being taken up there. I understand what my hon. Friend says about the importance of the commitment of the police force. I assure her that our inter-ministerial group that looks into this issue is keen to learn from best practice, wherever that comes from. The issue of the Cleveland police force has been discussed. Importantly, my hon. Friend highlighted the role of men in relation to the issue. It is high time that we talked a great deal more about that. That leads to the point that she rightly made. In the year that we are commemorating the bicentenary of the abolition of the slave trade, horrific trafficking in human beings still takes place. We need to tackle that and deal with all the causes, ranging from poverty in the countries from which those people come, on which action is being taken by DFID, to the behaviour of men in this country.
	On forced marriages, hon. Members welcomed the Government's statement this week. It is important to remember that even though there is not a specific offence of forced marriage, a range of crimes are committed now by people who force women into marriage. Hon. Members should be assured that we take the matter extremely seriously.
	Domestic violence was covered in some detail by my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Lynda Waltho). It was enormously interesting to hear her remarks. I agree that it is important for us to continue to devote substantial resources to the problem. We have spent £6.7 million over the past three years improving services for victims, and there was an announcement this week of almost £2 million for multi-agency risk assessment conferences. My hon. Friend rightly pointed out that where we have started to see significant successes emerge from the assessment process and the domestic violence courts, those should be rolled out further so that the benefits are felt throughout the country. My hon. Friend will know that the issue of children witnessing domestic violence is one of the causes of significant harm as described in the Adoption and Children Act 2002, so the link has been recognised.
	Sanctuary schemes are important in making some women safe, although they are not appropriate for all women. We issued guidance in December last year on the right way to go about setting up such schemes. Although there is a cost involved in making a room safe, that cost is significantly less than it can be to re-house women and their children, and the scheme overcomes the problems that women would face as a result of their children changing schools and as a result of moving away from their neighbourhoods and support centres. We encourage local authorities to consider establishing sanctuary schemes and to see how, by saving on their homelessness budget, they could use their existing resources to make women safer in their own homes.
	Hon. Members raised the concerning matter of the low conviction rate for rape. The hon. Member for Solihull asked why there seemed to be a significant change in the rate. My hon. and learned Friend informs me that 10 years ago the figure for conviction was7.3 per cent., much the same as it is at present. There was a higher conviction rate in the 1980s, but in 1992 marital rape was made a crime, and more women who were raped in longer-term relationships started to complain. Those offences have been harder to prove than stranger rape. Clearly, there is still a great deal to be done in that area, and Ministers continue to work on it across Government.
	Many issues relating to women in the workplace were highlighted. There was a heartfelt plea from the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs. Miller) to make this place more family-friendly. Her plea rightly received the support of many other hon. Members. The hon. Lady sent me a note to say that she has left to be with her son on his fifth birthday. I am sure nobody minds that in order to do so, she has exercised the flexibility that we should have.
	The pay gap is an important topic. The Women and Work Commission, which reported to the Prime Minister last year, produced a range of recommendations for tackling the many causes of that gap. Skills and part-time working are key issues. We have identified over 100 exemplar employers who operate a range of measures to encourage more women into areas of work where there are few women, such as engineering, and to support women working for them now.
	We have seen some positive figures: since we introduced the right to request flexible working, the number of women who change their employer when they return from maternity leave has halved. As the hon. Member for Basingstoke said, that is still one in five women, but I say that that is still progress.
	We need to examine the introduction of a culture of greater flexibility by our companies, because the issue involves not only those with small children, but, from April, those who are caring for adults. We want to develop a culture that recognises that, where possible—it is clearly not possible in all roles—flexibility should be offered, because it often increases staff retention, which therefore cuts recruitment costs. Furthermore, people tend to be committed to employers who offer them the ability to combine work with family life.
	We rightly heard a great deal about entrepreneurs. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston uponHull, North talked about the need to grow businesses. The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) made an important and interesting contribution, in which she talked about how micro-finance could help women develop their own businesses. We also need to keep our eye on the problems that women have in accessing finance from the main sources and do more work on that issue.
	The hon. Members for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) and for Basingstoke talked about what we are doing to ensure that women have the skills to move out of lower-paid jobs, which my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Barbara Keeley) described as "sticky floors". We have introduced various initiatives, including the new deal for lone parents, the train to gain programme and a women in work sector pathway initiative, which will provide £10 million over two years from 2006 for sector skills councils. That money will be matched by employers to develop and test new recruitment and career pathways, which will benefit more than 10,000 women.
	A number of other issues have been raised, including infertility, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Basingstoke and my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor). The issues are complex, and a number of concerns have come to light about fertility services around the country. Because of the complexity of the issues, those points should be responded to by the relevant Health Minister, and I will seek to obtain an appropriate response to those concerns.
	We spent some time discussing representation, which is, perhaps, unsurprising given that it is close to all our hearts. I will not enter into the earlier banter and debate, but it is clearly important that the Government have implemented the means by which political parties, if they choose to do so, can take measures that involve positive discrimination in order to encourage a greater gender balance. The Labour party enacted that legislation in 2002, which led to 65 per cent. of new Labour MPs at the last election being women. We want to see more women on both sides of the House.
	The Department for Communities and Local Government is looking at the barriers for women in local government, which is an enormously important area. We are increasingly looking at more devolution towards local government, and we want to ensure that there is proper representation for not only women, but people from black and minority ethnic groups. That work will be ongoing, and hopefully it will give us more ideas about how local government can examine reforming itself in order to improve representation.
	Several hon. Members discussed maternity services. Our commitment is that by 2009 all women will have choice in where and how they have their baby. We want every woman to be supported by the same midwife throughout her pregnancy and for that support to be linked closely to other services that will be provided in children's centres. Our overarching aim is to improve the quality of services, safety and outcomes for all women. That requires skilled maternity professionals with the required level of experience and training. We believe that it is right that decisions about service reconfiguration are for local NHS organisations to make for themselves.
	International women's day is an opportunity not only to celebrate the progress made by women but to reflect on what still needs to be done. We have heard about hon. Members' experiences not only in this country but abroad, about the need to tackle as well as to break through the glass ceiling and about women in lower-paid jobs and in poverty. We should never forget that issues related to women in poverty have an impact on our target—yes, an ambitious target, but one that we should all support—of lifting children out of poverty, because if women earn what they should be earning, that will improve the income of the family and lift more women and children out of poverty.
	Fifty per cent. of women in part-time work are working below their skill level and have the ability to do better, and another 30 per cent. would take on training in order to do higher-paid, higher-quality jobs if they had that opportunity. It is enormously important to tackle that issue, which has been focused on in the work of the Women and Work Commission. As we agreed, we will respond to its report later this month.
	Closing the pay gap is not the work of one year or even a few years—it is a much longer job given the occupational segregation that girls and women learn from an early age. Nevertheless, I think that hon. Members will see that it is being taken seriously not only by the Government but, importantly, by a whole range of organisations in the public and private sectors that are putting in place measures to ensure that women can continue to work in their organisations either full-time, with the flexibility that supports their needs.
	As my hon. Friends the Members for Worsley and for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) rightly noted, next month the ground-breaking gender equality duty will come into force. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford found reticence among those responding to her questions because Departments are in the process of developing further what they have already done to ensure that they comply with this important piece of legislation. Public authorities will need to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination and harassment and to promote equality of opportunity between men and women, both in the services they provide and in their employment practices.
	The duty is not just about service delivery, although that is enormously important—it puts equality between men and women at the heart of our public services, ensuring that they are delivered so as to meet the needs of men and of women. It also means that public authorities must, in terms of their employment practices, consider any causes of a gender pay gap and any impediments to progress through the career grades for women members of their staff. If enacted properly—there is a role for monitoring that—it should prove to be ground-breaking and make a huge difference to how our public services are delivered. It demonstrates, along with many other measures that are being taken by this Government, that we will continue to pursue equality.
	We are all grateful to the men and women who have fought for equality and social justice in the past, and we are committed to continuing that fight.

Robert Syms: It is not the first time that I have raised the subject of funding and finance in Poole, and I suspect that it will not be the last. The problems will not go away and I want to make a case for a better deal for Poole.
	It is great to have the support of the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke), who has changed her plans to be here. I do not know whether she will intervene or catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and speak for a few minutes later, but the important thing is that we both feel strongly about the way in which Poole is funded.
	Poole council is a good council. High quality people, from all parties, serve on it and it attracts high quality officers. I have always been impressed by the way in which they conduct their business. The council has been under the control of different parties but I have never had any great concerns about it. Matters have always been properly debated and efficiently dispatched.
	However, life is becoming harder in Poole because the grant settlements that we have received over a series of years put great pressure on the local authority. Poole is a beautiful place. It is also a place of extreme contrasts. Parts of it have some of the highest house prices in the country yet several wards are in the worst 25 per cent. for deprivation. One has to envisage some of the contrasts in London to appreciate what life is like in Poole.
	Poole receives only £169 per head of Government funding—it is in the floor. That is less than 50 per cent. of the average figure for unitary authorities. Although council tax in band D is slightly lower than the average—in 2006-07, it was £1,233—that was achieved by superhuman efforts by the local authority, which placed a high priority on keeping council tax down. We have many retired people who are on fixed incomes and, Poole being in the west country, salaries are not especially high. Council tax is therefore a live issue for our constituents.
	In 2007-08, the council's net budget requirement was £84.542 million, of which £61.333 million—72 per cent.—was raised from council tax. Our fundingfrom Government was £23.209 million—27 per cent.—through the general funding formula. The balance between Government support and locally generated council tax leads to a feeling of unfairness about the system of grant distribution.
	Since 2003, average unitary authority funding per head has increased by £114 but only by £44 in Poole. We therefore feel not only disadvantaged by being towards the bottom of the league tables—though nobody would expect us to be at the top—but that we are falling behind other authorities because of the operation of the funding formula.
	I want to make a specific point. I was here when the Minister for Local Government made his announcement about the grant settlement. He said that no authority would be below 2.7 per cent. The local authority in Poole feels that its grant in the current year has gone up by only about 1.7 per cent. It says that revenue support grant was £22.82 million in 2006-07 and £23.209 million in the current year, which represents an increase of only 1.6 per cent. I understand that there has been some correspondence and debate. Will the Minister point out where the discrepancy lies, as there is a feeling that we are missing out on 1 per cent. of that grant—£235,000, I think—which would make some difference?
	In December 2004, the Minister for Local Government announced that he had overhauled the system used to distribute formula grant to local authorities and increased the level of resource equalisation. That has had a substantial detrimental effect on authorities such as Poole, which has high house prices and is assessed as having a relatively greater ability to raise council tax locally. In previous conversations, I think that he acknowledged that that element in the formula is one of the factors that disadvantages Poole.
	Resource equalisation was intended to reflect the higher need for spending in authorities that have a weak tax base. However, the difficulty is determining the extent to which higher spending is genuinely the result of higher need, or whether it is attributed to factors that should not be compensated for through the grant system, such as higher levels of service or demand for discretionary services. Increased resource equalisation would appear unfair to lower-spending authorities, where local voters favour lower taxation over a higher service level. That is a key issue for people in Poole.
	If there is to be a high level of resource equalisation, the targeting of significant amounts of direct Government funding to deprived and declining areas could also be brought into the resource equalisation system. Without doing that, areas such as Poole, who miss out on much funding, will consider it unfair.
	Poole acknowledges that it has received funding to support the regeneration project in the town. One of the main capital projects is the building of a second bridge in the harbour. There is also a building schools for the future project and, more recently, a local authority business grant has been received.

Robert Syms: The hon. Lady makes some good points. The capital projects have helped Poole, but they are relatively small compared with those in some authorities.
	When compared with household income, house prices are very high in Poole: the ratio is 5.44:1. That places Poole in the top 10 per cent. of the most costly places to live, based on households aged 20 to 39, among 407 other local authorities. Our house prices are probably more aligned with those in the south-east of England, but our wages are more aligned with those in the south-west, which creates a problem.
	Overall unemployment is low at 3.4 per cent., and that impacts on the inability to recruit locally. In addition, recruitment to low-wage jobs is made more difficult when house prices in the area are so high. The average selling price for a house in Poole in the fourth quarter of 2006 was £266,368. The difficulties of recruitment are compounded by the loss of 20 to 29-year-olds within the population in recent years. It is terribly difficult for young people to get on the housing ladder in Poole.
	The cost of adult care in Poole is also significantly above the unitary authority average. In 2005-06, the average gross weekly cost of intensive care for adults and older people in Poole was £567 compared with the unitary authority average of £501. The average cost of residential and nursing care for older people in Poole was £528, compared with the unitary authority average of £416. Currently, 21 per cent. of the population is over the age of 65.
	A number of things have happened recently that have increased difficulties. An example is the concessionary fares scheme for the over-60s and those with disabilities, although many people welcomed it. Poole has a population of 137,000 and 36,000 residents over 60, and received £800,000 towards a total budget of £1.4 million to reimburse the bus operators. Torbay, which has a population of 132,000 and 34,000 residents over 60, received£1.254 million, significantly more than Poole. Surprise surprise, the scheme in Poole is showing an overspend of £440,000. That is another burden that will fall on council tax payers.
	There are many more things I could say, but time is limited. We suffer from a formula that disadvantages us and does not take account of the pockets of deprivation in Poole. My constituency is very mixed, and the circumstances of people living a mile apart may be very different. There is a strong feeling among members of all parties and no party in Poole that we are being unfairly treated. The campaign for fair funding for Poole is gathering thousands of signatures in the shopping centres. On most Saturdays both Liberal Democrat and Conservative councillors are out gathering the signatures, which will be presented at a future date. People feel very upset about the way in which the grant is being distributed.
	There is a more important point, however. We might accept our place in the lower half of the table given our position in relation to areas that are rather more deprived, but the gap is widening at a great rate. A great deal of what happens in local government results from national pay agreements. It costs just as much to empty a bin or to employ a teacher in Poole as anywhere else, but it is difficult to provide the same level of service when we do not receive the same level of funding of education, for instance, as many other parts of the United Kingdom. I am not saying that our outcomes are poor. Dorset is very good at delivering good local government outcomes, but it is much harder to do that with a poor funding formula.
	I am glad that the Minister has been present at least to listen to what I said and to what was said by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole. Perhaps she will reflect on the fact that people feel they are being treated unfairly. There ought to be more transparency in the system, so that those people can see more clearly why they are in their present position.
	Recent grant changes have probably made it rather more difficult to delve into the formula and argue about the methodology. Sometimes people look at the figures and do not quite understand them. I hope that if I do not receive answers from the Minister today, we may be able to exchange correspondence to generate at least a better understanding of our relative positions. I also hope that we can have another debate in the future about why Poole should be treated more fairly so that it can continue to deliver first-class local services.

Angela Smith: I congratulate the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) on securing a debate on an issue that I know is close to his heart. It has given us a useful opportunity to discuss Poole and local government funding. I want to praise the way in which the hon. Gentleman raised his case. At times we can all speak in the House with passion and commitment, but at other times, when our case is somewhat weaker, we find it more difficult to do so. The hon. Gentleman had a difficult case to make, and he made it well. The people of Poole should be proud that he represented them as he did.
	Let me outline the local government funding position. The Government will provide £65.8 billion in 2007-08, an increase of £3.1 billion, or 4.9 per cent., on the previous year's funding. Formula grant will make up £25.6 billion of that total in 2007-08, an increase of3.7 per cent. on a like-for-like basis. I shall say more about that, because I think there has been a misunderstanding and that I can help the hon. Gentleman.
	The settlement confirms the increased investment announced last year as part of the first stable and truly predictable local government settlement. Allocations for all English local authorities were announced for 2006-07 and 2007-08. We examined the spending pressures with local government. In 2007-08, there is extra provision, over and above the previous plans, of £508 million, following the representations that were made to us. Looking ahead, we are committed to securing a sustainable three-year settlement for local government in the comprehensive spending review 2007, and are working closely with local government to achieve that. We recognise that local government needs that stability and an assurance about what the funding will be.
	There has been a continued real-terms increase in investment in local government, which will allow authorities to continue to deliver effective services at a cost that is affordable for them and for local residents. The increase in total Government grant for local services since 1997 is 39 per cent. in real terms—that is 39 per cent. higher than inflation.
	On the calculation of formula grant, I take on board the points made by the hon. Gentleman and by thehon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) about complexity. It is not a case of not wanting to be transparent. It is just that the way to reach a fair settlement—the basis of the approach has existed since 1981—is relatively complex. The system of distributing grant to councils according to a formula that reflects the relative needs of an area and the ability to pay council tax in that area is not new.
	As I said, the broad approach to reaching a formula has existed since 1981. However, last year, we reformed the grant calculation system itself. The new system has the advantage of removing the old assumptions about spending and tax from the calculation of grant. Asa result, it devolves more accountability to local authorities. Grant distribution is now determined by four things: a relative needs formula; an amount relative to the resources that can be raised locally based on the property profile; a central allocation per head; and grant damping.
	The relative needs and resource elements should be broadly familiar to hon. Members, since the system has long contained formulaic estimates of relative need, and of relative ability to raise council tax. The central allocation makes explicit what was always implicit in the system: that after taking account of differences in relative needs and resources, some of the grant is allocated on a per capita basis.
	We are continuing to protect all local authorities from detrimental changes to their grant allocation through the floor damping mechanism. Local government agrees that stability is an important consideration in the grant distribution system. Floors guarantee a minimum year-on-year grant increase and curb the volatility of grant levels for individual local authorities, thus providing the degree of stability that local authorities requested. I too regard stability as a key issue in local government funding. I have made it clear that the grant floor is a long-term part of the funding system.
	The hon. Gentleman raised some concerns about Poole. I will try to assist him, but I will also write to him if that is helpful. Poole will receive £23.209 million of formula grant in 2007-08, and that is a 2.7 per cent. increase on a like-for-like basis. Poole benefits from the floor protection by £65,564.
	The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to show me his figures and to raise his concerns before the debate. The figures that he has from Poole council suggest that it has had only a 1.7 per cent. increase. Those are incorrect inasmuch as they are not comparing like for like. The figure on which the 2.7 per cent. is calculated is a like-for-like figure, adjusting last year's figure to reflect the basis on which this year's figure is paid.
	That has been made clear to Poole council. I understand that the matter is complex, and I appreciate the work of finance officers and experts in local government. As a former finance officer in local government myself, I can understand the difficulties that are sometimes faced but it has been explained that that is a like-for-like figure.

Angela Smith: Rather than caveats, I prefer to say "explanation". It is to do with the change in funding capital. That is what makes the difference. By looking just at the pure cash terms increase, one does not compare what the grant is for one year with what it is for another year. That may be a helpful comparison, and I will put that in writing to the hon. Gentleman, but the council has had that information.
	I have to say that I did not recognise some of the figures that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, but I will admit—I think everyone in the House would—that local government finance is a pretty complex subject. I studied for the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy exam for two years, and I was somewhat relieved when I was no longer a CIPFA student.
	Taking formula grant and schools funding together, in 2002-03, Poole received a total of £68.4 million formula grant and had a population estimated at 140,492. That is equivalent to a per head figure of £486. In 2007-08, Poole will receive £23.2 million of formula grant and provisionally £64.5 million of dedicated schools grants and it has a population projected at 137,644, making a total of £637 per head.
	I appreciate that all councils everywhere wish that their grant increases were greater, but those figures hardly square with the picture being painted by Poole council that somehow it is being deprived of funding to which it is entitled. Local government agrees that stability is important. The floor damping system is in place to guarantee a minimum year-on-year grant increase and curb the volatility of grant levels that some local authorities saw in the past. Poole is protected by that floor.
	It may be helpful if I say something about the way in which local government grant is formulated. The formula grant settlement is designed so that more grant will go to those authorities with a greater need tospend on services—for example, they may have high deprivation levels—and a low tax base, than to those authorities that have a small need to spend on services and a high tax base. I appreciate, as the hon. Member for Poole said, that Poole has pockets of deprivation—all areas have pockets of deprivation. That is why the deprivation index will take into account the level of deprivation in an area. There are areas of the country that have a higher level of deprivation than Poole.
	In Poole's campaign, it has drawn funding comparisons with areas such as Manchester, Leicester, Middlesbrough and Bournemouth. All those areas have significantly higher deprivation indicators than Poole and therefore would expect to receive more money to deliver their services. One of the deprivation indicators used in the formula is the percentage of people aged 18 to 64 who are, or whose partner is, in receipt of income support, income-based jobseeker's allowance or the guarantee element of pensions credit. That takes into account the points that the hon. Gentleman made about the higher number of pensioners in Poole.
	The areas with which Poole has chosen to draw comparisons in its campaign have high levels of deprivation. I am surprised that they were chosen and not others. Manchester has a level of deprivation of 18.3 per cent. The figure is 17.2 per cent. for Middlesbrough, 13.6 per cent. for Leicester and 8.9 per cent. for Bournemouth. Poole's deprivation figure is 5.8 per cent. I am sure that it is grateful that that is well below the national average of 8.5 per cent. According to those figures, it is not correct to claim that the settlement is unfair.
	The hon. Gentleman's council could have chosen to make comparisons with other unitary authorities such as Wokingham, Rutland or Windsor and Maidenhead, but Poole chose not to make those comparisons because it does not suit its campaign. It would be fair to look at the relative funding and relative need in other areas to get a broad comparison, not just choose areas that suit the council's case.
	Poole's relative ability to pay council tax is higher than that in many other areas. That is expressed in terms of the council tax base—roughly, the number of band D, two- adult equivalent households per head. Poole's tax base is higher than average, at 0.41 compared to 0.36 for England and for Torbay, as I think the hon. Gentleman mentioned. So Poole has a lower-than-average level of deprivation and a higher-than-average tax base, and that is based on the principles of the 1981 formula, which has been updated. It is therefore expected that Poole will meet a higher-than-average proportion of its expenditure from council tax.
	The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) mentioned that Poole has benefited from other Government grants. It disappoints me sometimes that councils that have benefited in other ways from Government grants fail to acknowledge that. I was grateful for the hon. Lady's recognition that Poole had benefited in that respect.
	The hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Poole asked for more transparency in the system. I have already drawn attention to the complexity of local government funding. We are awaiting Sir Michael Lyons' report; we hope to see it relatively soon. It may show us a way forward. We need to consider that possibility. I have provided some understanding and some transparency this evening. Perhaps, in the future, the system will be less complex—we will have to see what is in Sir Michael's report.
	The hon. Member for Poole mentioned the fact that a greater proportion of Poole's expenditure comes from council tax than Government grant. Given the increase in Government grant from the formula that has been given to Poole, I hope that this does not lead Poole council to consider a higher than expected council tax increase for local residents. Investment has been made in Poole council and councils everywhere, and local residents would be somewhat dismayed if the council tax increase were too high.
	There is one other point that I want to make, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take it in the spirit in which it is intended. The campaign against the formula seems rather late in the day. He has said that his councillors are out every Saturday in the high street collecting names at their street stalls for a petition. Given that local elections are looming, I wonder whether the campaign's timing has more to do with that. I hope that I am wrong.